Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TOR BAY HARBOUR (OXEN COVE AND COASTAL FOOTPATH, BRIXHAM) BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (BARROW) BILL [Lords]

Considered; to he read the Third time.

BRITISH WATERWAYS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

East Midlands

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in the east midlands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the east midlands region was 154,200, compared with 189,300 in April 1987, a fall of nearly 19 per cent. over the last 12 months.

Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is good news for the east midlands and yet further evidence that the Government's economic policies are working? Can my hon. Friend tell me the figures for my constituency of Derby, North? Does he accept that one of the biggest threats to future job creation in Derbyshire, emanates from the high-spending, irresponsible policies of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council? Is it not the case that high rates cost jobs?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. High rates do cost jobs. The figures that I have just given show the success of the Government's economic policy in getting unemployment down. In my hon. Friend's constituency unemployment has fallen by more than 700 or 13·7 per cent. during the past 12 months.

Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that last week the Corah company, a leading east midlands firm with a national reputation has made 780 people redundant? I visited the firm yesterday and there was tremendous anxiety among those who have kept their jobs as well as those who will

lose their jobs, about their employment prospects. There was special concern that, despite the financial position of the company, it continued to recruit workers during the last 12 months. What is the Minister prepared to do to boost the employment prospects of textile workers in the east midlands?

Mr. Lee: Obviously, one sympathises with any redundancy, but even in the textile industry there are skill shortages. As for Government support, something like £100 million of regional assistance has gone into the region since May 1979. We have inner city task forces in Nottingham and in Leicester, and the full endeavours of the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, or the Training Commission as it is now called, are available to help those who, sad to say, have lost their jobs in the redundancies that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) mentioned.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures are due in no small part to excellent companies such as Rolls-Royce which, with its entrepreneurial approach, has just obtained a £1 million order in the United States? Is that not an example of the Government being able to free industry really to get going and do what it should be doing?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, he got it slightly wrong in that, if I am correct, it was a £1 billion order rather than a £1 million order. I follow the fortunes of Rolls-Royce very carefully because it has a major plant in my constituency at Barnoldswick which is doing very well. Of course, the very important plant at Derby is in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the closing down of the Corah knitwear plant in my constituency, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is a potential tragedy for more than 700 families, because the knitwear industry is still in recession, still having slack times and still getting no help from the Government?

Mr. Lee: With the greatest respect, there is nothing I can add to the comment I made in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

Trends and Opportunities

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet his opposite numbers in the European Economic Community Employment Council to discuss employment trends and opportunities.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I will be attending the next meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday 9 June. I will take that and other opportunities to encourage the Community to stimulate market-led employment growth and to take advantage of the potential in the single European market.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confrm that the single European market, starting in four years' time, will create fabulous employment opportunities going beyond the internal growth prospects of each of the member states?

Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. The recent Cecchini report to the European Commission suggested that there may be 1·25 million to 2·25 million additional jobs. If certain other scenarios are followed, there may be as many as 5 million to 6 million, according to some estimates.

Mr. Cryer: Has not the Common Market been full of promises that have never been fulfilled? Since 1973 there has been a talk of "jobs for the boys" being created, but all we have had is a huge millstone round our neck. Can the Minister tell us how the internal market will remove the £11 billion deficit in manufactured goods? Could not the £4·7 billion that the Government have paid to the Common Market since 1984 have been used to provide more jobs in our country?

Mr. Cope: The single market will improve the situation by improving competition within the Common Market and by giving us a large home market on which to draw.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend consider during his meeting what extra assistance can be given to the creation of jobs in the south-west? That area does not seem to do very well, compared with the rest of the country, in aid from the EEC for job creation.

Mr. Cope: No, but it does not do too badly in terms of jobs. From the Government's point of view, I had the pleasure yesterday of launching "Action for Jobs, South-West", which is intended to emphasise in the south-west what the Government are doing to assist in this matter.

Care in the Community

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the implications for care in the community of the introduction of the adult training scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on this subject. It is hoped that most community programme projects will continue into employment training, but I recognise that some may not do so. My Department's officials will be discussing this with representatives of the voluntary sector.

Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that there is deep anxiety among local authorities and the voluntary sector about the changes in the community programme? At its worst it could mean the loss of 88,000 places that have an input into the organisations of £436 million. In my local authority the projects under threat are health authority projects, a crime prevention project—the Conservative party claims to be the party of law and order—a drug abuse programme to help people come off heroin, which is a problem, and an unemployment centre. Will the Minister give an assurance today to organisations in my constituency and throughout the country that if finance is not found under the new programme, money will still be available for them to continue?

Mr. Nicholls: Obviously, any period of transition is bound to give rise to anxieties. To a large extent, we have now been able to satisfy those anxieties. We are well aware

of the problems of operations such as centres run for the benefit of the unemployed. However, the important point about the new programme is that it brings training into what had previously been only community programmes. There may be many cases—for all I know, centres for the unemployed may be some of them—where, although groups may not be able to provide training in their own right, they can effectively become sub-contractors to the main scheme. To that extent, I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.

Mr. Simon Coombs: In the context of the adult training scheme, will my hon. Friend recognise the importance of courses designed to bring women back into employment after they have had their families? Will he look extremely carefully at the rules for the new scheme to ensure that such courses will not be affected but will be encouraged?

Mr. Nicholls: I share my hon. Friend's concern. One of the criticisms of the old community programme was that women not in receipt of benefit found that they could not get on the course and, therefore, found it that much more difficult to return to the job market.
However, under the employment training programme special arrangements will be made for single parents whose youngest child is in full-time education to enter the programme after they have been on an order book for six months.

Ms. Short: We know this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady clearly does not know this. If she could contain herself for one moment, it might be welcome news to her. Special arrangements will be made for returners to be able to come back into the job market, and I hope that that will be welcomed by all hon. Members.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that there is special significance in the change of the title of the scheme to employment training, with its telling acronym of ET—it was probably conceived on another planet? I visited four schemes in my area in the past week and discovered universal hostility to it. Many groups that have contributed prodigously to care in the community, such as those that help offenders coming out of prison and the settlement of people leaving mental institutions, are hostile and feel that the new scheme will at least cut the value of their work and, in some cases, cripple it.

Mr. Nicholls: Even by the standards of parliamentary riposte that was a remarkably feeble jibe to make of a programme which will provide substantial opportunities for 600,000 people a year. Employment training will be very much to the benefit of every unemployed person in this country. I should like to think that if the hon. Gentleman cannot take his lead from the Government he could do so from the TUC and give at least conditional support to a programme that will be of massive benefit to his unemployed constituents.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what region of the United Kingdom has the highest number of long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the reduction in the number of long-term unemployed people over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Over the past 12 months there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment of 266,000. The region with the highest number of long-term unemployed in April 1988 was the south-east, with 206,500 people, although that is 65,700 lower than April 1987. The new employment training programme, which comes into operation in September, aims to achieve further reductions in long-term unemployment.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the region with the highest number of long-term unemployed is the south-east shows that the north-south divide is a complete and utter myth? Does he agree that those figures show that, in the booming economy of the south-east, many people are working and claiming and many are not working even though jobs are available, which gives a truer picture of the number of people who are really unemployed?

Mr. Fowler: Another way of considering the number of long-term unemployed around the country is to look at percentage figures as opposed to numbers. Where my hon. Friend is unquestionably right and the Opposition characteristically wrong is that in the south-east and around the country there is an increasing number of unfilled vacancies. One of the aims of the new employment training programme is to give long-term unemployed people the skills to take up those vacancies so that long-term unemployment decreases further.

Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the figure for the number of long-term unemployed is quite remarkable? Will he say how many people under 25 fall into that category and how the figure compares with five years ago?

Mr. Fowler: One of the biggest falls among long-term unemployed people has been among the under-25s. In the year to April 1988, there was a fall of about 34 per cent. Long-term unemployment among the under 25s is at its lowest level for five years.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister acknowledge—he mentioned percentages—that in all probability Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed people? Will he say what hope there is for the peripheral areas of the United Kingdom when the single European market comes into force in 1992, given that the south-east now has the highest number of long-term unemployed people?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed. The general policies to combat unemployment obviously apply to Northern Ireland and we hope, through the new training programme and other such measures, to provide skills for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland just as everywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman pledge not to overlook the real worries of the tens of thousands of textile and steel workers in all the regions of the north

who lost their jobs early in 1980–81? What real jobs is he planning to provide for the men who lost their job at that time who are now aged nearly 50 and have no prospect of work? Can we have less complacency and more action?

Mr. Fowler: There is no complacency about unemployment or the long-term unemployed. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that new vacancies are now becoming evident in the economy. I hope that both sides of the House will unite behind our policy to provide good training to assist people to acquire skills so that they can take those jobs that are now becoming available. To obtain consensus on that would he a giant step forward.

Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone—every employer and every college—should now be involved in a skills crusade, because unless we can produce people with skills we shall not be able to continue to achieve the 21 per cent. reduction in the number of long-term unemployed that we have achieved this year? Does he further agree that such a crusade is not helped by the Opposition continuing to rubbish every programme that is brought forward to improve adult training?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that there are over 700,000 vacancies in the economy generally. We need training to help long-term unemployed people to take those jobs and opportunities. We now have a historic opportunity to reduce long-term unemployment in Britain even further and I hope that the country can agree to take that opportunity.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who are in employment are participating in the youth training scheme.

Mr. Cope: At the end of March 1988, there were 61,603.

Mr. Cohen: Was not the youth training scheme orginally supposed to be part of a package of work training for all youngsters, but of those 16 to 18-year-olds in employment very few are on the YTS or obtaining proper training, while many others cannot afford to be on the YTS because of the poverty pay under that scheme? Young people are receiving next to no training whether or not they are on the scheme. Is it not the case that the Government are putting very little into the training of our youngsters?

Mr. Cope: Oh no, we are putting a great deal into that. A total of 381,000 young people are on the YTS, and that is a lot. Of course, we should like more and we want it to be a normal route between school and work for young people.

Mr. Bill Walker: When considering the youth training programme, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in Scotland many new jobs are emerging in leisure, recreation and tourism? We welcome the fact that, because of the strength of the economy, many English people can spend so much of their time on vacation in Scotland where the quality of life is so much better. Will he bear in mind that we must have more training schemes in leisure, recreation and tourism activities?

Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. That is one of the expanding areas in this scheme, as in others.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that until recently he and his colleagues were boasting and bragging about the fact that the school leaving age had been raised to 18? Is it not a sad fact that youth training has largely become a programme for unemployed youngsters? Even worse than that, is he not worried that up and down the country young people are now opting to go into low-paid, dead end jobs with no training at all? Is that the way in which he envisages our work force competing with other countries in the years to come? Should not employers be forced to provide a basic minimum level of training for young people between the ages of 16 and 18?

Mr. Cope: I do not think that employers should be forced, but we want to encourage them and that is exactly what the YTS has done. That is why it has expanded over the years and why it is making a major contribution. I agree that we want as many young people as possible—if possible, all young people—to go into jobs in which they are supplied with proper training, leading, as YTS increasingly does, to qualifications which will at least set them on the right road for life.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about employment figures in the United Kingdom and such equivalent information as he has for her European Community partners.

Mr. Fowler: In the latest three-year period for which information is available—between 1983 and 1986—the increase in employment in the United Kingdom of 920,000 was greater than in the rest of the Community combined. During 1987 the trend in the United Kingdom continued, and employment rose by a record 500,000.

Mr. Thompson: That further good news on the employment front is welcome to all hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proportion of people with jobs is considerably higher in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the European Community, and can he state how the increase in employment in the United Kingdom compares with the employment situation of our competitors, West Germany and France?

Mr. Fowler: The proportion of the population of working age in employment is higher here than in any other Community country apart from Denmark. Four member countries experienced decreases in employment over the past 12 months; they were France, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Apart from Britain, only Germany showed a substantial increase, and the German increase was no more than half as great as the increase in Britain.

Mr. Grocott: Are not international comparisons of unemployment figures related to the length of the working year and the length of the working life? Given that words such as "harmonisation" are so popular these days, is it not time that we copied best European practice by introducing a 35-hour week and providing for six weeks' minimum annual leave and retirement at 60 for men who want it?

Mr. Fowler: I do not know what sort of bill the hon. Gentleman has run up in a matter of 30 seconds, but I do not think that that is a very sensible proposition; I should be surprised to hear that it was the Opposition's policy. The hon. Gentleman asked where the figures came from. They are published by the statistical office of the European Communities in Luxembourg. They are comparable and they show the very good performance of the economy of this country compared with those of other countries in Europe.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment prospects in this country will not be improved if the Government block takeovers of British companies solely on the ground that the bidding company is controlled from overseas?

Mr. Fowler: We have to consider that matter case by case, but Britain and British companies have invested in or taken over companies overseas and we must expect the same to happen here at times.

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that comparable EEC figures for unemployment are based on the labour force survey? That shows a drop in unemployment of 157,000 in the United Kingdom since May 1986, yet the United Kingdom published figures claim a drop of 714,000. How does the Secretary of State explain the difference? Is not the bulk of the drop in United Kingdom unemployment explained by measures that push people off benefits and do not the figures give a very misleading account of the real level of unemployment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is typically and absolutely wrong. In her comparison with the labour force survey she omitted to say that that survey shows a lesser unemployment figure than the benefit count. In other words if we used the labour force survey to show unemployment in this country, it would show a reduced rather than an increased number.

Productivity

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in productivity during the three months to January 1988 and over the same quarter to January 1987.

Mr. Cope: Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per head, increased by 1·6 per cent. in the three months to January 1988. In the three months to January 1987 it fell by 1·1 per cent.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the immediate prospects for British industry are extremely rosy, those prospects depend on industry's ability to contain its unit labour costs? If it does not do that competiveness will deteriorate which will mean that orders will be lost and, worst of all, jobs will be lost. What urgent advice does he have for employers and the TUC?

Mr. Cope: I certainly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. He asked what advice I had. The watchwords for everyone concerned with pay bargaining must be realism and flexibility, but the point on this question is that improved productivity pays for real pay rises.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the great advances in productivity that we so much need come from the elimination of repetitive tasks by machinery, and that in that process a number of people who at present find it quite easy to work will find it increasingly difficult to hold down the jobs? As productivity changes, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will keep under review the medical criteria by which people are adjudged to be fit or unfit to work?

Mr. Cope: Yes, but I would also point out that that is why training is so important, particularly the employment training programme that we discussed earlier.

Disabled and Mentally Handicapped People

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there have been any changes in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart and the new availability for work test.

Mr. Lee: There has been no change in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart. People who are limited in the work they can do because of their health are only required to be available for work they are able to do.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify his answer? He failed to clarify the point that disabled people and the mentally handicapped either have to be registered for sickness benefit or they have to be available for work, like everybody else. The Minister said that the Government are interested in giving genuine training. If that is so, surely there should be a response to disabled people that relates to their disability, as the all-party Public Accounts Committee argued. What the Minister has just told us does not relate in the least to the needs of disabled people.

Mr. Lee: The restart programme is extremely positive. To give an example, about 3·4 per cent. of the total restart interviewees, or 121,000 people, have been referred as a result of the restart interviews, to disablement resettlement officers, which emphasises the positive nature of the programme.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware of his Department's figures, part of which he has just quoted, which show that of the 114,000 people who attended the one-week restart courses last year, only 7 per cent. got a job? For those 7 per cent., restart was a success, but for the other 93 per cent. it was a failure. In Coventry, for example, there are still 30 unemployed workers for every vacancy registered at a jobcentre, restart or no restart.

Mr. Lee: As my right hon. Friend has said repeatedly, there are 700,000 vacancies nationally. The restart programme is positive and beneficial. About 88 per cent. of those who attend interviews are offered something positive.

Mr. Nellist: But only 7 per cent. get a job.

Ms. Short: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House by saying that there has been no change in the eligibility criteria for disabled claimants. Will he confirm that his Department issued a circular on 17 March that described tightened eligibility criteria for disabled, mentally handicapped and disturbed claimants? Will he confirm that the circular makes it clear that

unemployment benefit offices have received more claims from disabled people than they expected and that, given that they have more money to gain from claiming sickness benefit, this shows the determination of disabled people to work? Is it not a disgrace that the Minister's Department is tightening up on the availability for work tests for disabled people when it has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for the service that it provides for disabled people?

Mr. Lee: We are being very fair to the disabled. Both we and the Department of Health and Social Security have issued instructions to ensure that those who are eligible for alternative benefits are directed appropriately.

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding possible amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

Mr. Nicholls: I am not aware of any formal representations regarding amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. My Department does from time to time receive suggestions on possible amendments to the Act from various organisations and individuals and these are naturally given due consideration.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that the Froggat report showed that the health of non-smokers is seriously affected by people who smoke at work? Is he aware that legislation has already been introduced in Belgium, Spain, Norway, Austria and Canada? When the Minister wrote to me saying that the Government would block my Bill to outlaw smoking at work, he said that he did not believe that further legislation was necessary. Was this because the existing Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which requires employers to provide a healthy environment, could be used to stop smoking at work, or was it because the Government are totally complacent about the health risks?

Mr. Nicholls: The Government certainly are not complacent about health risks, although on a personal level I can agree with the hon. Gentleman that smoking is a thoroughly beastly habit. One cannot go round legislating about smoking, however, simply because it falls into that category. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Government's view is that it is not necessary to introduce further legislation. If the degree of smoking at work is such that an employer, in allowing it to continue., is not providing a safe environment for people to work in, that is a matter that falls under present legislation. In other words, it is unnecessary to take any further action with regard to such an extreme case; the present law is sufficient.

Mr. Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report on safety on construction sites in London and the south-east the Health and Safety Commission said that there were far too many accidents and that safety standards must be improved? The commission also suggested that the laws needed to be tightened. Do the Government have plans to change the existing laws so that we get improvements in safety on construction sites in London and the south-east?

Mr. Nicholls: It is because the Government are very much aware of the situation on construction sites that they were completely supportive of the commission's recent blitz on accidents on construction sites. That was an extremely successful campaign, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises. As so often, there can be a mixed picture, and at the moment fatalities at work are running at an all-time record low.

Mr. Madden: Is not the Minister concerned by the increasing numbers of people being seriously injured at work in west Yorkshire and elsewhere? What is he doing to ensure that more factory inspectors are appointed so that inspections can be carried out? What is he doing to ensure that places of work are inspected at least once a year, because there is now a mountain of evidence to show that places of work are going uninspected for years on end? What more is he doing to make sure that employers who are found to be in breach of existing legislation are fined far more heavily than at present?

Mr. Nicholls: The enforcement of the law on a day-to-day basis is in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive, and it is right that that should be so. The Government devote substantial resources of public money to enable it to carry out its tasks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted the extra £6·7 million that has been contributed. I am afraid that in the end the campaign has to be won in the work place, among the people working there, and the employers. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, and since he is concerned about the number of inspectors, I can tell him that the number of inspectors engaged in relation to those whom it is their duty to inspect has remained pretty constant in recent years.

Mr. Hayward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of industries complain that the safety restrictions imposed upon them are more severe than those imposed on competitive industries in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and other European countries, thereby making it more difficult to reach the levels of productivity achieved in other parts of Europe?

Mr. Nicholls: I have never accepted that there is a trade-off between a proper safety standard and commercial viability. I can agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that when we frame and maintain safety legislation we have to make absolutely certain that it fulfils its task and that it is not unnecessary.

Mr. Strang: When will the Minister accept that the £6·7 million increase to which he referred is wholly inadequate for the Health and Safety Executive to carry out its enormously important work? I refer not just to the need for additional inspectors but to coping with the new responsibilities that the Government have put on it, including the work under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 on agricultural pesticides, the full impact of which the HSE has yet to feel.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman knows that one can always make out a case for spending more money. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere. He is being unreasonably dismissive of a sum of money that was welcomed by the chairman of the commission.

London Centre for European Business Information

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about his visit to the London Centre for European Business Information.

Mr. Cope: I visited the London Centre for European Business Information in December. The centre holds information on a wide range of European matters which small businesses need if they are to take advantage of the challenges and opportunities of the European single market. The centre is located in the London branch of the small firms service, and the whole service can therefore draw on its information base.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital for small and large businesses to seize in full the opportunity presented by the single European market from 1992? Will he do all that he can to ensure that all business information centres do what they can to prepare small businesses for that challenge?

Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. The matter is important. Of course, small businesses are likely to have more difficulty in getting the information that they need. That makes it important for us all to do our best to publicise the information centres. Perhaps I can start by explaining that the address is 2 Ebury bridge road, SW1, and it can be contacted on Freephone Enterprise.

Employer-School Compacts

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many urban programme areas have applied for development funding for employer-school compacts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The Training Commission has invited applications for development funding by 30 June. Over 40 compact proposals are being developed by employers, education authorities, and other interested parties in urban programme areas. I hope to be able to announce which partnerships have been chosen for development funding at the end of July.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main benefits of compact schemes are, partly, the better understanding that grows between employers and teachers, and the raising of standards among school pupils? Will he take note of the report that shows that, whereas in London, all too often the rate of school attendance falls to one in three, in those east London schools where the compact has been experimented with, the rate of attendance has risen to four in five?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. It is still early days for the east London compact. The results are promising. The scheme is the result of the Boston compact, which pioneered the concept. We certainly hope that this will result in a major expansion of compacts around the country.

Ms. Armstrong: I wonder whether the Secretary of State recognises that employers in London are concerned about the effect on their arrangements of the break-up of the Inner London education authority, bearing in mind the way in which its careers information in particular aided and enabled the compact programme to go ahead. What discussions is he having with the Secretary of State for


Education and Science to ensure that something is done to enable London schools and authorities to co-operate so that the scheme can continue?

Mr. Fowler: We would certainly want to see a continuation of the great careers service in London. The east London compact is already running. We shall certainly look at any proposals for an extension and for financing it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present too many pupils leave school without a serious work ethic? How will the scheme improve that?

Mr. Fowler: Fundamentally, it will improve it, because the whole aim of it is to come to an agreement between companies and schools, so that, provided the pupil meets attendance and academic requirements, he will be guaranteed a job afterwards.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the compact deserves maximum encouragement, that there is no magic in the figure of 12, and that, provided that bids are genuine, legitimate and well-researched, the Government might consider supporting and funding more than 12?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is a recently announced pilot, as part of the inner city initiative. There has been a tremendous response to it. We want to get the pilot schemes started, but we shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman said and the proposals that he has just made.

Benefit Fraud (West Midlands)

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources his Department devoted to the recent clampdown on fraudulent claims for unemployment benefit in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The two recent fraud investigations concerned private hir care and taxi drivers in the west midlands and an exercise in Coventry that examined claimants who had failed to collect their Girocheques, despite being advised to do so. A total of 18 fraud staff were employed by my Department on the two exercises, at a cost in salaries and expenses of £54,000. The net benefit savings that accrued from these exercises amounted to £510,000.

Mr. Tredinnick: How many benefit claims were withdrawn as a result of the investigations? Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much money was saved nationally as the result of the investigations in 1987–88?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. The amount of money saved as a result of fraud investigations has increased from £11 million in 1984–85 to £54·6 million in 1987–88. The number who have withdrawn claims as a result of such investigations has increased to 80,000 in the current year.

Mr. John Evans: If the investigation of fraudulent unemployment benefit claims has been so successful and has saved taxpayers millions of pounds, why does not the Secretary of State try to persuade the Government to mount a drive against fraudulent tax claims and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds?

Mr. Fowler: We want to see both investigative activities taking place. I do not think that anything that the hon. Gentleman says should detract from the seriousness of the fraud that is being perpetrated here. We are not talking about people who are confused about their social security entitlement; we are talking about people who are deliberately defrauding the system. I think that it is about time that the Opposition supported this action.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Bowden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time today to send the congratulations of the House to Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev on their successful summit meeting in Moscow. Will she acknowledge the tributes that have been paid to the part that she, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has played in bringing about this historic meeting of understanding and warm friendship, which augurs so well for disarmament and world peace?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have already congratulated President Reagan at the Guildhall, which was a very successful occasion with a quite brilliant speech by the President, and I have of course already sent a message of congratulation to Secretary-General Gorbachev. I believe that the outlook for East-West relations is better than it has been for many a long year, and that that is so because we are strong in two directions in the West, first in defence and secondly in freedom under the law and human relations. I believe that this country's voice is heard because we have been strong in both defence and freedom under the law.

Mr. Kinnock: While we are on the subject of human relations and freedom, has the Prime Minister seen the report on the young homeless called "No Way Home"? Does she not agree that the problems of the growing number of homeless young people on the streets of London, living in destitution and in moral and physical danger, require urgent action by the Government? Will she therefore change the new social security regulations to ensure that such young people can receive money in advance to obtain lodgings?

The Prime Minister: It is true that a number of young people are leaving home who would not have done so in previous circumstances. We are having to provide more housing units than we should otherwise have done—and having to provide them when those young people already have a home to live in, belonging to their parents. The Government are indeed doing a great deal to tackle homelessness. The total support for housing is very much larger. We made £5 million available last year through the estates action initiative. Our mixed funding housing association initiative, with grants ranging from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of scheme costs, will help as well. We also


have a hostels initiative, with over 14,700 places approved since April 1981 to benefit young single homeless and others.

Mr. Kinnock: That answer can only mean that the Prime Minister is willing to see huge numbers of young people at risk from crime, prostitution and even hunger. Does not she realise that in London alone there are 50,000 young, homeless people without secure accommodation, that the hostels are packed, and that there are 1 million fewer places to rent than there were at the beginning of the decade? Is she willing to see a new generation of street people increasing, or will she answer the first question I asked and change the regulations to revert to the original position so that these young people can get money, lodgings, jobs and look after themselves?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have listened to what I said. There is a hostels initiative to have places approved for these young people and to benefit the young single homeless and others. We made it much easier for council tenants to sub-let, which they used not to be able to do, and to introduce shorthold tenancies. We have increased this year the programme of grants to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness. Those are three positive steps. There is a number of young people who choose voluntarily to leave home; I do not think that we can be expected, no matter how many there are, to provide units for them.

Mr. Kinnock: The charities in this area, as in many others, are marvellous but it is neither fair nor realistic to ask them to do the job the Government should be doing. Will the Prime Minister answer the fundamental question? Will she revert to the original arrangements, which enabled young people to get money for lodgings? Does not she realise that if they have no home they have no job, and that if they have no job they have no home and they have no money? Is she willing to see those numbers increasing?

The Prime Minister: I have answered twice in the negative to the right hon. Gentleman's fundamental question. I point out to him that there are now 1·6 million more housing units than there were eight years ago.

Mr. Janman: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policies on defence are clearly divided——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Mr. Janman: In her busy day will my right hon. Friend consider that the Opposition's policies on defence——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue along that line.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned about the huge explosion in domestic credit that has taken place in recent months? If so, what will she do about it?

The Prime Minister: I think that an increase in personal credit is all right provided it is balanced on the other side by an increase in financial assets willingly held. That is the case. It has been so balanced.

Mr. Curry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of schoolchildren are this week sitting their

written examinations for GCSE? Will she make sure that the A-level examination remains a genuine test of learning skills, discipline at work, and intellectual ability?

The Prime Minister: The GCSE examinations are in their early years. Doubtless we shall learn a good deal from the way in which they are working. It is vital that children have the chance to get this qualification. It is a true test of what they do, both in their general work and with external moderation. With regard to A-levels, there is a report out, which I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with in reply to a written question today. It is absolutely vital that we continue to regard the deep study of some single subject as important during the years from 16 to 18, particularly for people going to university.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her duties to tell us why she asked for a private valuation of Richmond yard? Does she think that she received value for money at 26 times what it would have cost the Property Services Agency to carry out this valuation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment about this. He has replied to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. He has pointed out that this is the first of the office blocks to be built in Whitehall. It was absolutely vital that we get an accurate estimate, by a commercial enterprise, of the amount of rent that it would fetch in the open market. I think that was done.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern felt throughout the country about recent attacks on police officers by affluent young people who have had far too much to drink? Does she not agree that this House should give every support to the police and that one of the best ways of giving that support is to ensure that we go on increasing police manpower throughout every force? Does she also agree that that should be the target of the Government throughout this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have substantially increased police manpower and pay. They also have very good equipment. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police are entitled to look to the ordinary citizenry for help on all occasions. They are entitled to look to schools and families to teach discipline and they are entitled to expect all of us to point out to those young people that they are responsible for their own activities, and no one else.

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago, knowing that I shall have no difficulty in hearing his supplementary question.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev have met on numerous


occasions and have agreed one important principle—the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Does she agree with them?

The Prime Minister: They have not agreed on the total elimination of nuclear weapons. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there might one day come a time when that is possible. I must say that I doubt it, for reasons that he knows full well. What they have done—and I hope it will meet with acclaim—is to sign the first agreement to reduce nuclear weapons. However, I think they have done more than that. They have by their meetings—also supported by the West—brought about new hope in East-West relations and new hope for the future.

Mr. Forth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the INF agreement and the resultant reduction in nuclear arms would probably not have occurred if one side had entered into the negotiations committed to the one-sided abolition of nuclear weapons? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on Sunday bears a remarkable resemblance to the unilateral policy of the Labour party in the past?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There would have been no agreement on reductions in nuclear weapons if one side had already said that they were going to give them up totally and utterly unilaterally. In those circumstances we should not have made the progress that we have made now.
With regard to the latter part of the question, I am just not at all sure what the policies of the Labour party are.

Mr. Heffer: rose—[interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions mean that other hon. Members cannot be called.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that while all the people of this country are absolutely delighted at the atmosphere that developed at the summit meeting and at

the possibilities of future reductions in nuclear arms, some of us are somewhat nauseated by the sycophantic attitude that she adopts towards President Reagan and the United States? When she considers human rights, does she also take into consideration the human rights of the people of Nicaragua, or of other states in south America and elsewhere? Will she stop having double standards in relation to human rights?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, yes, I did say thank you on behalf of the United Kingdom for everything that the United States does to uphold our basic freedoms. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot do the same.
Secondly, yes, I did congratulate the President on the first treaty to reduce nuclear weapons and on his wisdom in knowing that the next step, beyond the START agreement, is to reduce conventional forces but that our defences must be strong.
Thirdly, yes, I did congratulate President Reagan on the way in which he raised the issue of human rights, right in the heart of Moscow. He did not flinch from that at all.
Fourthly, I note that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua do not have the sort of democratic government of which the hon. Gentleman takes advantage day after day.

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's victory in the Falkland Islands represented a tremendous achievement by our armed forces? Will she take the time today to consider why British television companies spend millions of pounds—[Interruption.]—putting the heroism of our troops in a bad light and mixing fact with fiction?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely well. Whatever the policy of the broadcasting authorities, I believe that the whole country was behind that campaign, applauded its military brilliance and is totally indebted to all the people who took part in it and all who supported it.

Haverigg Prison, Millom

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the riots and escapes at Haverigg prison, Millom, Cumbria and whether he will institute a public inquiry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): During the night of 5–6 June 1988, a serious disturbance took place at Her Majesty's prison at Haverigg in Cumbria, which is a category C establishment with places for around 500 inmates. It started at about 7.30 pm when approximately 40 prisoners began causing damage to buildings. Extra prison officers were deployed to duty and appeared to be containing the action. At about 11 pm there was an escalation and the officers were forced to withdraw and police were deployed to secure the perimeter. Prison officers later gained control of the prison, but for a time a total of 34 prisoners either escaped or were unaccounted for. All except three escapees, none of whom has been convicted of offences of violence, are now back in custody. In all, 28 buildings were damaged and 300 prisoner places were lost temporarily. Repairs are already in hand.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked Mr. Gordon Lakes, the deputy director general of the prison service, to conduct an urgent investigation into the disturbance. It will be a comprehensive and wide-ranging inquiry which will consider all the relevant factors that may have contributed to the incident. When he has received Mr. Lakes' report, my right hon. Friend will report his conclusions to the House.

Dr. Cunningham: Was not this the largest mass escape from any prison in England for more than half a century? First, I praise the work of the prison officers and the Cumbria police for reacting swiftly and, on the whole, effectively to the serious situation that developed.
Why did the Home Secretary reject my call in December 1987 for a review of security at Haverigg, following a series of escapes from the prison that year? What action was taken following my letter to the Home Secretary in January this year about a serious drugs racket in Haverigg gaol?
Is it not the case that on Sunday night there were only two fully trained and qualified prison officers on duty, supported by seven auxiliary officers? Is it not also the case that local prison officers believe that the prison is seriously understaffed and that the complement set by the Home Secretary is inadequate to ensure the safe management of the prison, and have they not made those views known repeatedly to the Home Office? Is not their view confirmed by the Home Office report on the prison service for 1986–87, a copy of which I have here, which shows that the average manpower cost per inmate at Haverigg is the lowest for any category C prison in the whole country and the second lowest for any prison in England?
Following the massive and extensive damage, including the loss of more than half the total accommodation, can the prison continue to be operated safely or should it not now be closed? Will the inquiry—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) does not take this seriously——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question and the hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not a serious of questions.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the inquiry have the widest possible terms of reference and will the local authorities, which share my call for a public inquiry, have an opportunity to submit their views? Has not the cosmetic categorisation of prisoners as low risk to ease the massive strain on high security prisons led directly to these appalling consequences?

Mr. Hogg: This is a serious incident which we take seriously. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind words and support which he gave to the action of both prison and police officers. The inquiry will be wide-ranging and nothing relevant or credible will be excluded from it. Local authorities will have an opportunity to make representations if that is what they wish to do.
I do not think that manning levels are relevant to this issue. The Fresh Start complement is 92 discipline officers and now there are 94 in post, so manning is not relevant to this issue.
Drugs are a problem. We are aware of that and we are taking active steps to prevent the introduction of drugs into prison. The hon. Gentleman will recall the action that we took over the food for remand prisoners.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I add my congratulations to the police and prison officers for the way in which they dealt with the incident.
Will my hon. Friend answer two questions? First, will he confirm that when the incident happened the staffing level at the prison was proper to deal with it? Secondly, and more seriously, will he ensure that the inquiry deals with what has become a major local concern—that prisoners were deliberately given a lower category of risk in order that they should be sent to this prison which was not overcrowded? Will he confirm that that was a deliberate downgrading which, on reflection, perhaps should not have been done? Will he ensure that the inquiry deals with that point?

Mr. Hogg: There were about 20 prison officers on duty at the relevant time and I do not think that manning is relevant to this disturbance. However, the inquiry must be wide-ranging and questions of manning will inevitably be considered. I do not believe that anybody has been introduced to Haverigg who was inappropriate for that prison, but questions of categorisation must clearly be addressed and they will be during the inquiry which my right hon. Friend has set up.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister ensure that among the material that the inquiry considers are the accounts of prisoners who have been at Haverigg, including one lurid account on the front page of one of the quality papers today? Does he agree that, whereas a few pin-ups on a dormitory wall are harmless, the use of cannibis and hooch as currency in Haverigg prison over a long period shows extremely lax discipline during that time?

Mr. Hogg: I am aware of the issues and allegations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. As I have already said, all relevant and credible allegations will be considered during the course of the inquiry and that will


include any allegation of the type made in The Independent which, upon examination, appears both relevant and credible.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that category C prisons can contain prisoners found guilty of any crime if they are coming to the end of their sentence?

Mr. Hogg: That is correct. Category C is a judgment as to the risk that individual prisoners may pose to the community should they escape.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Minister agree that the present problem, serious though it is, is simply part of what can only be described as a widespread crisis in our prisons—a crisis of overcrowding? It was not so long ago that the idea of a prison population of 40,000 was considered impossible, but now 50,000 is common currency. Is it not time that the Government considered not so much how to build prisons, but how those prisoners who could he more economically and effectively treated outside receive that treatment?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has asked a general and a specific question. On the general question, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what was said in the debate a few weeks ago. On his particular question, there was no overcrowding at Haverigg. The certified normal accommodation is in the order of 500 and at the time of the disturbance there were about 515 prisoners.

Miss Janet Fookes: As there is an admitted drugs problem at the prison, will my hon. Friend assure us that particular attention will be paid to the visiting arrangements for prisoners because that is often when drugs are smuggled in?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As part of the inquiry we will be considering the question of the presence of drugs in the prison and the methods by which they got in.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As prison officers, both directly and through their association, had made representations about manning prior to the incident, will the Minister tell the House what happened when those representations were received by his Department? Was an inquiry carried out at that time or was no action taken based upon preconceived views as to what warrants proper manning of prisons?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will know that, during the course of this year, we are recruiting 1,365 prison officers in addition to natural wastage. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Fresh Start came into place in early April this year. The discipline grades at Haverigg numbered 92 and that was the number fixed at that time. The number in post at the time of the disturbance was 94. Let us assume for the purposes of discussion that there was an under-manning of 50 per cent. It is an illusion to suppose that 30 officers on duty that night would have made the slightest difference to the type of disturbance that took place. The truth is that manning levels are, so far as I can currently judge, irrelevant to the issue.

Mr. Edward Leigh: . Recently there was a packed meeting in my constituency to

discuss Home Office proposals to set up a category C prison in an ex-RAF camp. What credence can be given to the claims of Home Office officials at that meeting that category C prisoners have neither the wish nor the ability to escape when no fewer than 25 of them forced their way through a perimeter fence two days later? What confidence can be placed in Home Office claims that those prisoners are harmless when a Prison Officers Association official has revealed that high-risk prisoners are being placed in low category gaols to save cash?

Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the question, I do not agree with the suggestion made by an unknown source. On the former part of the question, disturbances of this nature are, happily, relatively infrequent. We are setting up an inquiry. We propose to learn all the lessons that we can from this incident and to implement them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister accept that this is just the latest manifestation of the problems associated with the real crisis in our present prison system? Although this riot appears to have been triggered off by something relatively trivial, it must have been the result of a build-up of frustrations over many months, or possibly years. Has the Minister considered the specific suggestion of introducing staff prison committees to discuss grievances or the recommendation of the chief inspector of prisons that a prison ombudsman should be appointed?
I should like to press the Minister on two matters that have been raised and not satisfactorily answered by him. He was asked about drugs and bullying in Haverigg. If the reports and allegations are correct, it is a disgraceful state of affairs. Surely these abuses have implications for manning levels, because if manning levels are inadequate prison officers cannot take action to deal with drugs or bullying.
I should like also to press the Minister on the issue of downgrading. Can he categorically tell the House that high security prisoners have not been downgraded in order to go to category C prisons, thereby reducing the overcrowding in high security prisons?
In view of all the implications of this matter, may I reinforce the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the inquiry should be in public and should include details of why the warnings given by my hon. Friend were not heeded at the time?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady has asked a variety of questions, and I shall try to respond to them.
We acknowledge that we have a problem in the prison system and that is why we have put in place a very extensive building programme that is unequalled in this century. The hon. Lady asked about an ombudsman. Our present view is that the complaints procedure works perfectly well. If in the course of the inquiry it appears that that is not the case, we shall have to reconsider our position.
The hon. Lady asked about categorisation. There is no reason to suppose that by some artificial device inappropriate prisoners have been downgraded to category C prisons, either to this one in particular or to prisons in general. I repeat what I have said about manning levels. In this prison the manning levels are up to complement, and at the moment I do not think that manning levels have any relevance to the events that occurred two nights ago.

Girobank plc

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about Girobank plc, a subsidiary of the Post Office Corporation.
Since 1968 the Girobank has grown into a successful banking arm of the Post Office, with a particular strength in money transmission and in handling deposits of corporate cash. It now has about 2·5 million customers and in 1986–87 made a profit before tax of £23·1 million.
Girobank now needs to expand vigorously and take on other activities in order to develop in the competitive world of modern banking. The Government believe that this expansion can best be achieved in the private sector. I therefore asked the Post Office to consider this and the Post Office Board has agreed that taking Girobank out of the public sector is indeed the best way to proceed. The Post Office and the Government have therefore agreed that the Post Office should offer Girobank for sale to a financial institution or other suitable company. Suitable bidders will now be given the opportunity to tender.
The Post Office Board and its chairman, Sir Bryan Nicholson, have agreed with me on the main factors that will be taken into account in evaluating bids. Price will, of course, be a major consideration in order to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer. We also agree that weight should be given to the prospect of selling to a purchaser who will widen choice for the general public in banking services. It will also be important to safeguard the close links between Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd. A new rolling contract has been concluded between Girobank and Counters which will govern their relationship under new ownership. We will be looking for a purchaser capable of developing and expanding Girobank's business. Post Offices Counters can expect to see increased business opportunities from that expansion as it is achieved.
The management of Girobank is today explaining and discussing this decision with its employees and their unions. Prospective purchasers will be invited to propose arrangements to enable management and employees to share directly in the future success of the business. The successful purchaser will, of course, also have to satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England.
This is a major opportunity to promote competition and to widen customer choice in the banking market through the trade sale of a nationalised bank. I believe that the Post Office, Girobank, Girobank's staff and its customers will all be well served by this new and important stage in the bank's development.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The statement prompts one basic question—why? What possible justification can there be, apart from political dogma, for disrupting a successful public enterprise of which Girobank is such a splendid example? What evidence is there that Girobank customers are dissatisfied with the service that they receive, a level of service in which Girobank, a prime example of public sector innovation, has so often set the standard? What guarantee is there that that service will be maintained in private hands? What protection is there against the takeover of Girobank by a clearing bank or

other major financial institution which could only limit consumer choice and increase an already unhealthy concentration of British banking in a few hands?
Does the Chancellor accept that a continuing commercial relationship with Post Office Counters is absolutely essential to Girobank's continued efficiency? What guarantee is there that Girobank will remain regionally based? How safe are the 5,000 or more jobs in Bootle, and what is the future of plans for a second site in the north-west?
What guarantees are there as to conditions and pensions for Girobank employees? What commitment is there to new expansion and continuing investment, and what assurance can there be that a successful public sector initiative which has widened consumer choice and set new standards in banking services will not be damaged and weakened in the hands of private sector predators?

Mr. Clarke: On the first key question asked by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), it is a matter of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government that private sector ownership of businesses tends to improve their performance. We believe that the bank, which is now poised for further expansion and development, will carry that out most efficiently and effectively in the private sector where it is able to raise its capital in the ordinary way, to be free from political constraints on its management and to win its customers by offering them improved services.
The customer base in particular is extremely important. It is a very good approach to examine the whole question from the point of view of the customer. Obviously, anyone interested in merging with Girobank will regard its present customers—2·5 million of them—as one of the principal assets of the bank's business and will be looking to enhance and improve the service. I know that the bank is contemplating moving into plastic card cash dispensers and more corporate finance and is looking to extend its insurance and mortgage business. It will find it easier to do so in the private sector.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must be careful not to limit choice for the public as a result of the sale or merger. When he studies my statement, he will see that this is one of the things that I agreed with the chairman we should look at when considering the bids. The Post Office will evaluate the bids bearing in mind the need to widen consumer choice if possible. At this stage, I am not cutting out anyone from entering the first rounds of bids to the Post Office, but one of the major British clearers would have considerable difficulty in satisfying our condition that one result of the sale should be a widening of consumer choice in banking services in this country.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a continued connection between Counters and Girobank is extremely important. That is why we have waited for the conclusion of the new contract, negotiated at arm's length between Girobank management and Counters management, which ensures a continuing relationship through a rolling five-year contract capable of being terminated only upon five years' notice either way. I expect that anyone buying Girobank will be buying, among other things, access to the Counters network, and therefore will have no intention of terminating the business connection and will be aiming to expand the business that goes over the counters.
As the hon. Member for Dagenham said, one of the main things that will be purchased by any acquirer of


Girobank is the regional base—its staff and assets at Bootle and the headquarters at Bootle. I do not believe that anybody will make a bid for the bank with the intention of running it down. In so far as the bank prospers in the future, the position of its employees will be improved. Their precise position is being explained to them by management at the moment.
Above all, one of the things we will be looking for from the purchaser of the business will be a commitment to the continued development and expansion of Girobank. It is because we want to see the bank expand and because we want to see a widening of consumer choice in this area and improved banking services that we think that the time has come to put Girobank in the private sector where we think that that is most likely to happen.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be a warm welcome from Conservative Members for his announcement? There is no reason to believe that the future for Girobank is anything other than excellent, and, freed from the ultimate control of Treasury constraints on raising capital, there is plenty of opportunity for expanding jobs in the north-west. Although the Labour party seems to be learning something from the experience of Socialist parties abroad, which have been dumping their ideological baggage, it still has something to learn from President Mitterrand, who is denationalising banks in France.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It seems likely that the Labour party, yet again living in the past, will be almost the only Socialist party in western Europe still committed to the idea of a nationalised bank, saying to the employees of the bank in the north-west that their future lies better in nationalisation than it does in the private sector with access to fresh capital and the possibility of expansion.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that everybody understands perfectly why he has done this? There are enormous profits to be made out of Girobank, which it was my privilege as a Minister to carry through the Cabinet and announce in the House 22 years ago. Is he aware that the British banks bitterly oppose Girobank, which is one reason why it was not introduced earlier? Even Ray Mawby, Assistant Postmaster-General in the Government of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was unable to get Girobank through because the banks did not want competition.
Girobank has been wildly successful and the figures given by the Minister show that. What he has announced today is a naked act of plunder of assets that do not belong to the Government, that were built up by public enterprise, public imagination and public investment and are now, as with so many other assets, to be sold off to the very people who financed the Tory party in its last three election campaigns.

Mr. Clarke: May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process of inviting bidders to tender will ensure that we will get a good price from the sale of the bank which will accrue to the public good? We will ensure that the taxpayer gets a bargain and that the full value of the bank is realised and goes first to the Post Office. But with our arrangements with the Post Office, what is surplus to its requirements will be made available to the Government. I realise that originally, in what was a different political

and economic era, Girobank was the creation of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In those days, he believed that we needed to have a state nationalised bank on the high street. If he were to win the election for the leadership of the Labour party I have no doubt he would reinforce the commitment of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who at the moment speaks for his party, to the idea of nationalised banking. The current climate is against that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to inject more competition into banking services, so, as I have said, we have agreed with the Post Office that we will be looking for opportunities for increasing competition when evaluating bids. Girobank has been successful. It went through a difficult time but has been successful in recent years. Certainly it should be more successful—it will have the opportunity to be so—when it is in the private sector.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people will greatly welcome the Government's decision? The track record of privatisation shows that the success of Girobank in the private sector will be assured. Will he confirm that it is the Government's view that Girobank should not be allowed to go into the hands of one of the big banks, arid that it must remain, as my right and learned Friend has said, in independent hands away from the big banking groups so that it will not only be moved into the private sector so that it can do better but will create more competition and more choice for the private customer arid the corporate customer, who need more choice?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The past nine years have changed the climate. Few people still cling to the notion that it is right for a business such as this to be state owned. Privatisation has proved its value to employees, customers and everybody who has an interest in the business.
I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's second point, which he made so forcefully. It would not be right for me to say that a bank should be ruled out of putting in a bid, but we should need much persuading before we accepted a bid from a major English clearing bank. I share my hon. Friend's aim of increasing consumer choice, and I agree that it would be a mistake to narrow it in any way. A new player on the clearing bank business scene over arid above Trustee Savings Bank, which we successfully privatised, will be of value to customers in this country.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has not given, but will he please give, an assurance that the 6,000 jobs in Bootle will be secure and that the bank will not be sold to another financial institution or bank that will not need the clearing house facilities on Merseyside? Does he accept that there is much anxiety among the work force and their families? Girobank is a major public sector success story. It is the only flagship of success in providing large-scale employment in my constituency. If the Government destroy it for doctrinaire reasons and reduce competition by selling off the only bank that competes with the private sector, they will be condemned on Merseyside arid throughout the country for an act of asset-stripping the like of which they have not yet undertaken. If Girobank is so successful, why do the Government want to sell it off if it is not simply for doctrinaire reasons and because they want to hand massive public-sector profits to their friends who donate to the Tory party?

Mr. Clarke: I understand the importance of Girobank to Bootle and its Member of Parliament. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman that this proposed sale is a threat to business in Bootle. Anybody purchasing the bank will be purchasing the facilities in Bootle and will regard them as one of the assets that they are acquiring. I find it difficult to accept that anybody will find it remotely worthwhile or sensible to contemplate acquiring the bank but then running down the business at Bootle. Nobody can guarantee a set number of jobs on Merseyside. The Post Office has never guaranteed a set number of jobs at Bootle. Those jobs have been secure and the enterprise successful because the bank has done well in recent years. If in private hands the bank continues to expand and succeed, there will be enhanced employment prospects on Merseyside and not the reverse.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend be required before Girobank is sold to a purchaser? Are we right to conclude from my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that he would withhold his consent if the prospective purchaser were from overseas?

Mr. Clarke: As I have explained, bids will go to the Post Office and its board will handle the sale. The Secretary of State has a right to issue a direction to the Post Office if it proposes to do something with which he profoundly disagrees. We are content for the Post Office to evaluate the bids in line with the criteria that I have carefully agreed with the chairman of the Post Office, with which the Post Office Board agrees. We shall consider foreign bids on the same basis as any other.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Gnomes of Zurich.

Mr. Clarke: I gather that the widening of competition has narrow, nationalistic connotations for some Opposition Members. In addition to satisfying the Post Office, anybody who bids will have to satisfy the Bank of England, comply with its strict criteria and be subject to the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who will advise on the implications, if any, for competition and merger policy. I can see nothing wrong in dealing with bids from overseas on exactly the same footing as those from this country.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister elaborate on the guarantees given to consumers that the sub-post office network will continue to be used and on the guarantees against major clearing banks buying it not on this occasion but perhaps on a future occasion on a resale? Will the Minister clarify whether the proceeds of the sale will go to the Post Office? If not, on what basis will they be redistributed into the Government's coffers? What debate and parliamentary scrutiny will there be in the House?

Mr. Clarke: We can tell the customer that the private sector purchaser will be seeking to maintain loyalty and expand the customer base. I am sure that any purchaser will wish to endorse the present plans of Girobank's management for expanding and improving its services. It was an extremely important precondition, without which we could not have proceeded, that there should be a satisfactory conclusion to the contract with Counters, which offers it every guarantee of being able to participate in the future success of Girobank.
If anybody were to try to acquire the business in the future, they would be subject to the ordinary rules of competition law and the banking Acts; that will be relevant to any future change of ownership. The proceeds of the sale will go to the Post Office, but by the unusual accounting devices that it has always operated, there will be an agreement about how much it needs for its own purposes, and any surplus, if there is one, is loaned to the Government for general public expenditure.
Parliamentary debate is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The debate about nationalisation and privatisation has become a one-way match. I should not have thought that the Opposition would have wanted to go over it again as they so plainly lost the general argument with the public.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the wide interest in this matter, but I must have regard to the other business before the House. I ask hon. Members to ask questions that have not been asked before. Then most of them will be called.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most hon. Members realise that there is no need for banking services to be owned by the Government or Government Departments? It is equally important that none of the big four banks should bid for Girobank because it should be a fifth force. Freedom for services and competition is important, as the Government have said.

Mr. Clarke: I take note of my hon. Friend's clearly expressed views. I cannot rule out anybody from making a bid at this stage, but I have probably given enough hints to show that I strongly agree with his instincts.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not Girobank being sold off because it is a highly successful public enterprise? It will not be improved by selling it to the private sector. Will the Minister give a categoric assurance that no purchaser who has contributed to Conservative party funds will be allowed to bid? If not, the public will regard this as a corrupt practice by which friends of the Tory party are buying their way into a highly lucrative business. Will he confirm that the Secretary of State will not exercise a veto over any prospective buyer, including any bank of Libya that might be interested?

Mr. Clarke: The lack of corruption in public life is extremely important. The lighthearted way in which some Opposition Members toss out allegations of corruption is extremely unfortunate. Plainly we shall sell Girobank to any suitable bidder who can satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England and who otherwise seems well poised to expand the business. We have no intention of ruling out any bidder who is prepared to recognise a trade union for negotiating purposes if it contributes to the Labour party's funds.

Mr. Derek Conway: What my right hon. and learned Friend has said will be welcomed by the majority of hon. Members. Will he assure those who represent large rural constituencies about the safeguards for the rural sub-post office network and the amount of information that will be given by the chairman of the Post Office to sub-postmasters?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's constituency is more rural than mine. I share his sensitivity about the interests of the rural sub-post office network, which is why it was so important to get the contract agreed before we offered the bank for sale. Any purchaser will be bound by it, and I do not believe that anyone will buy the bank intending to give five years' notice. One of the assets that will be acquired is the network of counters over which they can trade. If the purchaser is successful in expanding the business, our rural sub-postmasters and mistresses can look forward to an expansion in the work coming over their counters.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister aware that, since the Trustee Savings bank was stolen from its customers by the Government, Girobank is the only alternative not in the private sector for low income families who predominate in its customer base? What guarantees can the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer those low income families that their banking charges will not rise as a result of the privatisation?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not be drawn into discussing the TSB, but I remember the curious legal tangle that we got into. I think that it came as a matter of some astonishment to the average customer that he or she was regarded as having some proprietary interest in owning the bank; but that is all behind us. Anybody buying the bank will buy the bank's present customer base and I am sure will be aiming to retain and expand it. The customers will obviously stand to gain to the extent that the new proprietors succeed in broadening the services and making them more attractive. In the end, banking charges have to be determined by the management of each bank, including Girobank now.
Interest has been expressed on both sides of the House about increasing competition in clearing bank services, and it seems to me that increased competition will only exercise a downward pressure on the kind of charges that the ordinary customer has to face.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In offering my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend, may I say how intrigued and fascinated I was by his comments on the Post Office management's attitude to this privatisation move, and how delighted I am that it acknowledges the importance of competition in creating new jobs, innovation and expansion? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his persuasive powers to make the Post Office and the Government apply those principles to other more geriatric aspects of the Post Office's work, including the delivery of the letter post?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that on this policy I am in full agreement with the Post Office Board, the Post Office chairman and the management of Girobank. The Post Office is sensitive to the criticisms made of its service. I know that the chairman and the board are determined to raise the standard of service that they provide, and, looking at this aspect of the business with a view to entering the market place and making it more commercial and efficient, I have no doubt that they will apply the same principle to those parts of the business that remain in public hands.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that, when he talks of customer choice, 2·5 million people have chosen to bank with a bank that is publicly owned? Why should he deny them that option?

Will he also recognise that the north-west will have little confidence in the private sector maintaining the head office at Bootle when it looks at what the private sector has done to every other banking head office that used to be in Manchester?

Mr. Clarke: Customers are perfectly free to apply whatever criteria they want to their choice of bank. I have no doubt that a handful of eccentrics choose a nationalised bank rather than any other, but I suspect that they are a tiny minority of the 2·5 million customers who have gone to Girobank for other reasons.
I have already spoken about employment prospects in the north-west. I am glad to say that most of the bank's employees are based in Bootle and the Merseyside area. Any purchaser will be aware of that and, if the bank is successful in private hands, on balance that should be good news for the area, not bad.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure Conservative Members that this welcome addition to the enterprise culture does riot mark the end of the Government's review of Post Office businesses in their determination to ensure a much more commercial approach in all of them?

Mr. Clarke: A desire to improve customer service and to run the business as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible is an agreed aim between the Government and the Post Office Board. We are not studying any other privatisations and we are committed by our election statement not to privatise the Royal Mail. However, Girobank is plainly not within the Royal Mail, and I am not sure that the rest of the business is either.

Mr. Frank Doran: The Minister will be aware that Girobank does not just serve 2·5 million customers and make the profits that he outlined; it also serves a social purpose. What consideration has been given to the interests of those public sector institutions, particularly the Department of Health and Social Security, a major customer of the bank, to ensure that its interests and the interests of its customers—those millions of benefit claimants—are not prejudiced?

Mr. Clarke: The advantage to people such as DHSS claimants is the ready availability of the counter network. That is why the contract with Counters is so important, and that is why one of the principal attractions of the bank to someone looking to merge with it will be the immediate access to the nationwide counter network used by such a wide range of people. DHSS is a customer of the bank. That is the position now when it is nationalised, and it will be the position in future. I cannot imagine that the DHSS would contemplate moving to another network because this is the most readily accessible to its claimants. But the negotiations between the DHSS and Girobank remain those between a customer and a bank under whatever ownership.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his move which will remove much of the uncertainty that hundreds of my constituents who work for Girobank have felt for many months. Should there not be a suitable purchaser on the scene, will he consider floating the company, and at the same time giving the employees of Girobank an opportunity to subscribe to the shares?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that uncertainty is extremely damaging to morale in a business which at the moment is doing well and looking to expand. Therefore, we have made a clear and unambiguous statement today and we shall set out a timetable that I hope will move the business into private hands well before the end of this year.
We did consider the prospect of floating the bank, but at its present stage of development that would probably have been a fairly unsatisfactory way of proceeding, not least because newly floated as an independent bank it would have been vulnerable to early takeover. It will probably have greater strength through a trade sale to a strong financial institution which wants to come in from outside.
I hope that the announcement is reassuring to my hon. Friend's constituents. I think that when they consider carefully what has been explained to them today they will realise that this offers extremely good prospects and is an important stage in the bank's development. It is not a threat to the bank.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of the British people will find it somewhat alarming that, at the time of a Swiss takeover of a British company, he is refusing to say that there will not be a foreign takeover of Giro? Is not that another example of pork-barrel politics by this grubby Government who will make sure that some of their friends in business will make money out of it so that they can hand it back to the Tory party? Will he give a guarantee that Johnson Matthey will not be allowed to make a proposal? Will he also bear in mind that, since the Labour party will vote against the takeover, logically we shall then be arguing for its return to public ownership?

Mr. Clarke: As it happens, I have more friends in business in Britain than I have abroad, so the hon. Gentleman had better decide on which objection he wants to concentrate. Does he object to selling to friends in the Conservative party or foreigners? Neither consideration will be material to any sensible evaluation of any bid. We shall be looking for reputable purchasers who can satisfy the requirements of the Bank of England which are essential to give security to customers and widen customer choice in Britain. I see no reason to adopt bizarre nationalist attitudes towards the ownership of shares either in our banks or in our chocolate companies.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement will be welcomed by the vast majority of customers of Girobank who recognise that when it has access to a wider capital market it will be a more effective competitor and will offer better job opportunities to its staff and better services to its customers?
However, will he confirm that the election pledge not to privatise the Royal Mail does not rule out the possibility that will be welcome to many Conservative Members of greater competition being introduced to that service?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's estimation of public opinion and the judgment of customers and those who work for the bank. It was unclear what the Labour party would do, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has laid down a clear line, so obviously a policy has now been determined and the Labour party will vote

against this, but I think that it will have the support of a clear minority of those who have a look at this and who have an interest in the banking service.
I hear my hon. Friend's views on his second point. At the moment we have no similar plans for any part of the Post Office business. We shall honour our election commitment, but all the time in these services, as in other industries, whether they manufacture or provide services, we are looking at means of improving efficiency, spreading the enterprise economy and getting more benefits from privatisation of the kind that we have already reaped in previous privatisations.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Minister aware that his nose grew nine inches during his statement? The real reason for privatisation is to allow his asset-stripping friends in the City cheap access to the high street properties that are worth billions and access to the DHSS benefits business, which is also worth billions. Is not the success of the Post Office to be put down to the sacrifice of the work force in addition to public investment? However, as soon as public investment makes a return, the Minister and the Government ensure that their friends in the City are allowed to take the profits for shareholders. Quite simply, it is theft.

Mr. Clarke: It always saddens me to hear that the Labour party's view of the capitalist economy is that any private share ownership is wicked theft by a few villains in the City. One of the many things that have changed since the Labour party was in office is that we now have a society in which wider share ownership is becoming an accomplished fact and has considerable public support. As I have already said, we shall be looking for a purchaser to suggest ways in which the management and the work force of Girobank might have a stake in any future success that the business earns. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) may live in the past, but if he catches up with what we have achieved during our economic revival over the past few years he will realise that this is a welcome step that bodes well for the bank, its customers and its staff.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To which specific requirements of the Bank of England was the Minister referring in his opening statement, and do they relate to foreign purchase?

Mr. Clarke: I was referring to the so-called prudential requirements of the Bank of England. The requirements of the Bank of England exist above all else to ensure that those who carry out transactions with a bank have complete security and that the bank is a creditworthy institution that is entitled to have a licence to operate as a banking institution in this country. We apply those provisions equally to banks from any country. Certainly for this business I see no reason to apply preconditions against foreign ownership. The provisions of the Banking Act can also be invoked in the case of an acquisition of a bank.

Mr. David Winnick: May we take it that it is Government policy that if a public sector concern is not making a profit it must be virtually given away but that if it is making a substantial profit, as in the case that we are discussing today, it must also be privatised? Why does not the Minister drop his explanations and admit the


truth—that the present proposal is simply part of a Thatcherite Right-wing dogma policy and that the Government require no particular logic to try to justify it?

Mr. Clarke: Our principle is that if a nationalised industry is losing huge amounts of money and thus draining away taxpayers' resources and diverting money away from the National Health Service or the education service, for example, we seek to improve the efficiency of the business, we let the management put things right and we return it to profitability and commercial success. We then return the business to the private sector where it can raise its capital in the ordinary way and, in all our experience so far, thrive. The best example that we have of that process is British Steel. Only six or seven years ago it was a dilapidated, rundown rust-bucket failure costing the country more than £1 billion a year following years of neglect by the Labour party. The steel industry that we are about to return to the private market is extremely profitable, successful and competitive.
Later——

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware—I am not sure that the whole House is—that the major proposal to privatise Girobank—it is a major proposal, equal to the privatisation of British Telecom—does not need legislation and therefore will not he brought before the House in the usual way. There will be no Second and Third Reading debates. When the negotiations are completed and when the proposals have been outlined, they cannot be scrutinised in Committee. I know that that procedure is dear to your heart, Mr. Speaker; you have explained that you believe that the Committee procedure is important. The Minister also implied that there might be no justification for a debate on the matter.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the question of how the House is to examine in detail the privatisation proposals and how it is to vote on them. It would be an absolute scandal if the House of Commons did not debate, examine, scrutinise and vote on privatisation proposals that affect a major concern in this country.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he knows that it is not for me to advise him on tactics. There are ways of raising these matters, either on the Adjournment of the House or by means of a motion.

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further. It is not for me to advise hon. Members on tactics. That is not my responsibility. I am responsible for order in the House, and nothing out of order has occurred.

Bengali Families (Tower Hamlets)

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the eviction yesterday by the Tower Hamlets council from bed-and-breakfast accommodation of 10 Bengali families.
These families are in the United Kingdom lawfully and the husbands and fathers all came to Britain before 1973—many of them well before. For the past year Tower Hamlets council has sought to deny its responsibilities for housing the families or financing them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on the ground that, as the families must have had a home in Bangladesh, they rendered themselves intentionally homeless by coming to the United Kingdom. That wholly unexpected interpretation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was upheld in the Appeal Court in May, even though, with 46 children involved, it is accepted that the families are in priority need of housing.
The families spent last night in the church hall of the United Reformed Church in Bethnal Green, following—I am proud to report—a vote of the congregation to offer shelter to the families. However, this can only be a temporary arrangement, and their plight is urgent.
It is utterly wrong of Tower Hamlets council to do what it has done. The council has brought shame upon itself and much misery to the 10 families involved and to the further 24 families threatened with similar treatment.
The issue is specific to the families involved and no one will question that it is a matter of great importance to them; but it also raises issues whose importance goes far beyond Tower Hamlets. The decision affects immigration policy, as the clear implication is that the families, who waited years for their entry certificates, should now go back to Bangladesh. That would be compulsory repatriation by the back door. It is also extremely damaging to race relations in my borough and much more widely. It reveals a totally unexpected defect in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act as the words "intentionally homeless" were never meant to apply to lawful immigrant families. The Government are involved, because the one serious, but insufficient, excuse that Tower Hamlets council can offer for its conduct is the undoubted great shortage of accommodation in Tower Hamlets and the continued inadequacy of local authority housing finance provided by the Government.
These are matters of great importance to the House arid I submit that they merit an early debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific arid important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the eviction yesterday by the Tower Hamlets council from bed-and-breakfast accommodation of 10 Bengali families.
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he may find other ways of raising the matter.

Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy

Rev. William McCrea: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy of the UDR by the IRA on Saturday last, this being the 17th murder in the Castlederg area with not one person made amenable to the law for any of the 17 murders.
I appreciate the serious nature of the business before the House today, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, seriously to consider the gravity and importance of the matter that I have drawn to your attention. Yesterday, with more than a thousand of my constituents, I stood at the graveside of another gallant member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy is specific. He was gunned down on Saturday morning outside his widowed mother's home in Castlederg. His only crime was that he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a Protestant in a border village.
This sectarian murder is not an isolated incident, as Michael is the 17th member of the security forces to be murdered in the small Castlederg area. Not one person has been found guilty of, or charged with, any of the murders. The matter is important as it is evident that good, innocent, fellow British citizens are living in terror, knowing that soon the IRA murdering maniacs will strike, and possibly at them.
I believe that nothing is more worthy of urgent consideration than the lives and safety of our people. The cowardly cruelty of the murder of Michael Darcy joins a catalogue of similar depraved actions. The House must not let this death be in vain. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that a debate be held permitting the House and the nation to stop and consider the suffering of our citizens.
I deplore the fact that the murder happened after the visit to the Castlederg area of a well-known IRA godfather, Danny Morrison. Murders have occurred on two other occasions after his visits.
I salute the memory of this gallant soldier, Michael Darcy, and the bravery of all our security forces who stand between us and the terrorists, and I offer my sympathy and love to a broken-hearted widowed mother.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy of the UDR by the IRA on Saturday last, this being the 17th murder in the Castlederg area with not one person made amendable to the law for any of the 17 murders.
I am sure that the whole House has listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said on behalf of his constituents—as, indeed, I have done. As he knows, my sole duty in deciding whether an application should be granted is to decide whether it should have precedence over the Orders set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not think that the matter that he raised meets all the criteria laid down under the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Ministerial Documents (Leaks)

4.29

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the latest developments concerning the leaked documents emanating from No. 10 Downing Street and the Department of Education and Science.
The matter is specific because it refers to answers given on 17 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is present, and myself in the light of the leak of a ministerial briefing to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the text of which was released only yesterday.
I asked on 17 May one of many direct questions about the leak coming from No. 10 Downing street:
What does the Secretary of State think would occur if he confronted the Prime Minister with the truth—namely, that the leak was authorised on the Prime Minister's behalf from Downing street?
The Secretary of State for Education and Science replied:
The hon. Gentleman's paranoid preoccupation with plots is one of his most enduring and, indeed, endearing characteristics. I am afraid that yet again he has let his imagination run wild, and the hon. Gentleman's imagination is one of the most unpredictable elements of British politics."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 788.]
That made the House laugh at the time, but it appears from the leak that was released yesterday, which has not been challenged as to its authenticity by the Government, that the responsibility was indeed that of No. 10 and that it was not a matter of my imagination running wild. The Secretary of State for Education and Science knew full well when he answered the question that it was not a matter of the questioner's imagination. Rather, according to his brief which has been leaked, it is what the Department of Education and Science actually thought at the time and now actually believes.
I quote from point 2:
It is by no means certain that the leak emanated from the DES. The letter was circulated by No. 10 to members of the E (EP).
That is the education policy committee. That is Civil Servicese for "Downing street did it." It is an important matter because, as an old-fashioned Member of Parliament, I think that the House of Commons should not be deceived by Ministers. The House of Commons is owed the truth.
The matter is urgent because, quite clearly, somebody inside the Civil Service, possibly for the same motives as Clive Ponting, thinks that Parliament is being deceived. The truth, to the House of Commons, is a matter of urgency. Although in some ways it is trivial compared with the issues that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), surely to heaven truth to the House of Commons is still an important and urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,


the latest developments concerning leaked documents emanating from No. 10 Downing Street and the Department of Education and Science.
I have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning the letter from the Prime Minister's Office to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. When I asked the Minister on 17 May whether he had any further information, he said that he had no further information. In the light of the information published in today's newspapers, I wonder whether the Minister would care to revise his answer.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Points of Order

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise the House whether you have received from the Secretary of State for Defence an application to make a statement today on the fatal crash of an RAF Meteor jet aircraft within the city of Coventry last Monday? If the Ministry of Defence has not approached you with a request to make a statement, then constituents of mine, who live within 100 yards of that crash, the relatives of Flight Lieutenant Peter Stacey, who heroically gave his life by crashing that aircraft in the only available small piece of land between a school and two adjacent housing estates, arid those within the city of Coventry who are worried about air pageants when low-level flying takes place over densely populated areas, will not understand why that approach has not been made. It would have given the Secretary of State for Defence the opportunity to make a pledge to the House that the crash investigation taking place in Coventry at the moment will, for the sake of my constituents and the relatives of Flight Lieutenant Peter Stacey, be made public.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have received no request for a statement, but I think that the House will agree that it was a courageous act by this young pilot. I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about what happened in his constituency.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised with you previously the declared intention of the Department of Health and Social Security not to answer parliamentary questions concerning the social fund that was established on 11 April. Although it establishes an important precedent, it is not that which I wish to raise with you. I wish to raise with you the basis on which the refusal has been made.
The DHSS is to place in the Library regularly full information about the operation of social funds in each of the 500 local offices. I checked this morning with the Library. That information has not been placed there. It was available, or it should have been available, to the DHSS on 19 May.
I am sure that you recognise, Mr. Speaker, that one of your important responsibilities is to ensure that the Executive does not withhold information from the House of Commons. I should be grateful if you would make urgent inquiries as to when that information is to be made available. Failure to place the information in the Library flies in the face of assurances that we were given that there would be the maximum public monitoring of social funds. It denies all those who rely on Hansard for their information the information that is to be concealed from the public and the media by being placed in the Library. It is high time that this information was placed there. I should be most grateful for your assistance.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House and by those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. It is a matter for the Government, not for me.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought leave to move the


Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 about the answer of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, you said that you listened with great interest but that you did not feel that it could be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. One obviously accepts that, but surely that is not the end of the matter. I should like to ask you what you intend to do about a Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box and quite clearly misleads the House. According to The Guardian——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter which he knows is not my responsibility. I cannot be held responsible for what Ministers say or what questions are asked. [Interruption.] Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I can do nothing about it. I am not responsible for answers that are given. Furthermore, I do not know whether they are true or not.

Mr. Banks: May I ask you this, Mr. Speaker? If it were shown conclusively that a Minister misled the House, what then would be your attitude?

Mr. Speaker: If the allegation is that a Minister misled the House, the hon. Gentleman should write to me as a matter of privilege.

Renewable Energy Development Agency (Establishment) Bill

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent agency responsible directly to Parliament for the research, development, application, demonstration and monitoring of clean renewable sources of energy together with ways and means of proving and improving techniques of energy efficiency and fostering their positive adoption.
I arrived at the House today in a horseless carriage. Had that arrival been 150 years earlier, it would have had to be by steam-driven omnibus. Fifty years later it might have been by a bone-rattling car propelled by a spluttering internal combustion engine and accompanied, perhaps, by an attendant on foot with a red flag and a spotty dog. In whichever case, it would have been considered hazardous, unreliable, troublesome and very expensive. Today's horseless carriage, however, is considered quite safe, relatively reliable, comparatively clean and almost cheap.
The transformation between then and now was no accident; it came about as a result of investment in applied research and positively driven development, often motivated by the need of the military to react to some threat, either perceived or imagined. In the case of the infant transport technology, the allocation of such resources brought it from its stumbling beginnings to the effortless means of movement that we use today. Other technologies, particularly in renewable energy, have not had the same military-led stimulus and support.
Despite this lack of positive encouragement, some renewable sources of energy have established themselves as economic—or as near to being so as to brook no argument. In this category I would place direct biomass combustion, anaerobic digestion with added feedstock, small and medium-scale wind turbines, passive solar building design, tidal power, conventional geothermal from aquifers, photovoltaic small units, solar water heating and mini-hydro schemes. Other forms as yet less well established but still worthy of the commitment of the resources are the large-scale wind turbine, biomass gasification, hot dry rock, large-scale photovoltaic and, of course, wave power.
I travelled, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Erewash (Mr. Rost), to Tofteshallen, in Norway, to witness wave power being tamed to deliver electricity. We went by "sometime machine"—an aeroplane. It used to be called a sometime machine because it could only fly sometimes; initially it could not fly in fog or snow, in ice or rain, at night or in high winds. We flew that day through the most miserable winter weather and in the dark, and were able to do so because the sometime machine had been developed as a result of the quest for military dominance.
Having arrived at Tofteshallen, we looked upon two exciting applications of wave power, although there are others. Built into the cliffs there was the multi-resonant water column. Of semi-tech scale and hideously noisy, built of base steel as a prototype, it roared and vibrated as if in agony, as waves rising and falling inside the large metal cylinder alternately drove and drew the column of air through the Wells turbine that sits atop its steel stack.


All this din and drama produced electricity somewhat unsteadily but at 2·5p per kilowatt hour—cheaper than our best stations.
Immediately adjacent was the tapered channel—known as Tapchan. This computer-designed chute collected waves rolling in from the Atlantic and funnelled them from its gaping mouth to its ever-tightening throat. The waves, as if rejoicing in the opportunity to display their natural vigour, surged even faster landward up the concrete course, crashing against the solid terminus with a booming sound and spurting leap into the air, to come down as a spectacular dowsing shower into the landlocked lagoon that formed the gullet. This brilliant, inspirational and rhythmic rainbow display at the seaward gatherpoint contrasted starkly with the very placid character of the same lagoon at its innermost point, where water was smoothly siphoned from the still surface to be passed in the steadiest of streams, again through a Wells turbine and again producing electricity at less than 2·5p per kilowatt hour and in relentless style.
Both of these demonstration stations draw heavily on British technology. The Wells turbine was developed at Queen's university, Belfast, and the conceptual designs were British-born too. Both were built, together with the access road to the site, for a total cost of £1·2 million equivalent. And while the Norwegians were doing that, we were spending £2 million—almost twice as much—to produce a report centimetres thick that told us that our wave technology was not viable and was unworthy of development.
The Norwegians have hydroelectric capacity in abundance producing power that is dirt cheap for the consumer, so why should they go to such lengths to prove and improve our technologies? The answer is simple and twofold: jobs and export potential; jobs for a work force trained in the basic skills needed for a shipbuilding industry and the North sea oil and gas field requirements—industries that in Norway are declining and face the possibility of extinction by the turn of the century, jobs that are not just the high-tech, white-coated-boffin type, but the basic skilled manual jobs of the City and Guilds variety that every industrial community in the north and south of England, Scotland and Wales pleads for every day; export potential in the markets around the world among nations that recognise the benefits of renewables more readily than we in the United Kingdom do—not just Third world countries but nations such as the United States and Japan, export potential of equipment that is not the apparatus of technological dominance and high-tech imperialism but more the source of power that Third world peoples can understand readily, manage independently, operate safely and afford more easily. Export orders have already been secured by Norway for both types of wave-powered generator, and a tenfold increase in scale to 10 megawatts is planned for the multi-resonant water column.
Clearly, as inventors and innovators, we lead in renewable engergy, and that is acknowledged worldwide. However, as developers we present a portrait of unsurpassed indolence and neglect. Hence the need for the agency that I propose. It is needed to turn the undoubted promise of renewable energy and improved technological efficiency into reality. It is needed simply because the current framework is not up to that task.
Since the inception of the energy technology support unit we have laid out through its offices something like

£150 million on a 1986 base on renewable research and development—that is, on all renewable R and D. At first this sounds a lot of money, but we need to put it in perspective.
Since 1958, on the same base, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has expended £16·3 billion on nuclear R and D. To assess this clearly, we can view it as £1 spent on renewables for every £1,100 spent on nuclear. And £8·7 billion of that £16·3 billion was channelled through the Department of Energy. It is interesting to note that in the same period nuclear stations in the United Kingdom have delivered a total of 700 billion kilowatt hours. Ipso facto, in crude mathematical terms, the Department of Energy has expended 1·25p of taxpayers' cash on United Kingdom nuclear R and D for every kilowatt hour ever produced from United Kingdorn nuclear stations—a figure not accounted for in today's costings. In fact, the current rate of spend on nuclear R and D, even if we write off all previous investment, is estimated at 0·35p per kilowatt hour delivered. That is a hidden subsidy of major proportions. I do not decry such expenditure; what I criticise is the fact that more was not spent earlier on forms of energy transfer that are potentially safer, cleaner, cheaper and more efficient.
But cash is not the sole criterion. There are another three important reasons why a new agency is urgently needed. First, despite some excellent research work administered by the ETSU, renewable energies are entering a new phase, in that many forms are close to commercial viability, as I have already stated. However, businesses, Government Departments and the public generally know little, if anything, about them. Research work, together with its problems and solutions, needs to be promoted positively and disseminated widely. The ETSU is not geared to achieve that end.
Secondly, there are many institutional barriers to progress in respect of renewables. They include the well documented failure of the Energy Act 1983 in relation to electricity tariffs, the unfair levying of water and general rating charges on renewable energy installations, and the failure of statutory building regulations to reflect the promise of passive solar heating and the potential benefits of the most modern energy efficiency measures.
Thirdly, given that the ETSU is part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and that, following privatisation, renewables are destined to rival nuclear power, there is an unavoidable clash of interest. As the Energy Select Committee argued in 1984, the ETSU's formal status——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes. He must bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Cook: That is why I beg leave to bring forward this Bill.
I did not take 10 minutes, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. James Wallace, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, and Ms. Joan Ruddock.

RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (ESTABLISHMENT)

Mr. Frank Cook accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent agency responsible directly to


Parliament for the research, development, application, demonstration and monitoring of clean renewable sources of energy together with ways and means of proving and improving techniques of energy efficiency and fostering their positive adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Before we proceed, it might be of assistance to the House if I say a word about new clause 17, entitled "Modification of criminal law relating to abortion" in the name of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and other hon. Members.
It is a long-standing rule of the House, referred to on page 522 of "Erskine May", that a Bill may not be proceeded with if a Bill containing similar provisions has already been given a Second Reading in the same Session. As the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has been read a Second time and is still before the House, it would not be in order to import provisions similar to the terms of that Bill into the Criminal Justice Bill. The new clause is therefore out of order and was not available for me to select.
As to other new clauses that have not been selected, I shall not depart from the standard practice of not giving reasons for my selection.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not for one moment would I challenge your decision on the matter. I am familiar with the passage on page 522 of "Erskine May". You will remember, however, that, a little further on on that page, "Erskine May" states that, if the first Bill were to be withdrawn, a new clause such as the one put down in my name and those of other hon. Members, if selected, would certainly be in order for inclusion in the second Bill, in this instance the Criminal Justice Bill.
I trust that you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the immense dissatisfaction—indeed, anger—felt in many parts of the country and here at the way in which the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which not only had a Second Reading, to which you have alluded, but a Committee stage and debate on Report, with a majority thoughout its stages, was frustrated by procedural devices, if I may put it in the kindliest way. You will know too that the Government have offered no facilities for providing the time in which the vital votes on that Bill, which would have taken only a matter of minutes, could be taken. Therefore, I ask for your guidance as to whether, in the event of the Bill being withdrawn, it would be in order for new clause 17 to be selected for debate at a later stage in the consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that that is an action that he should take, the new clause would undoubtedly become available for selection.

Mr. David Alton: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that there will be considerable consternation, bewilderment and, indeed, a little cynicism that the House will today be able to provide so much time to debate the restoration of the death penalty, whereas we shall find no time to debate the further passage of a measure that has achieved considerable support in the House and would actually save life. Given that, in 1967, 25 hours of


Government time were provided for the 1967 legislation to make progress, would it be proper for you to have discussions with the Government to find ways in which the House could reach a resolution of the matter? If that were not to be done, would it not continue to bring the House and its institutions into disrepute?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me to have discussions on matters of that kind. As the whole House knows, I am bound by the rules laid down under the Standing Orders. If the House wishes to change them, it is a matter for the Procedure Committee.

New Clause 1

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

'The maximum sentence available to the Courts upon a conviction for murder shall be death in the manner authorised by law.

The jury shall have the power, upon reaching a verdict of guilt of murder, to recommend that such a sentence be passed.—[Mr. Gale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (b) to the new clause, after first "murder" to add—
'in the course of an act of terrorism'.
New clause 11—Death penalty for murder—
'The maximum penalty for murder shall be death.'
New clause 15—Sentences for murder—
'The penalty for murder shall be life imprisonment, but the trial judge shall have the power to impose the death penalty where the circumstances of the murder reflect particular premeditation, brutality or callousness; or to recommend the imposition of a minimum sentence where public protection requires it.'.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we know your intentions as to which of these new clauses you will permit Divisions to be taken upon?

Mr. Speaker: After new clause 1 has been divided upon—if it succeeds—there will be a Division on amendment (b).

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As new clause 11 is being debated with this, will a Division on it follow the Division on new clause 1?

Mr. Speaker: New clause 11 would fall for Division, if it falls at all, in its proper place on Report. Its fate depends upon the decision taken on new clause 1.

Mr. Gale: I am aware that a long list of names has been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, by colleagues on both sides of the House who wish to speak on an important subject. For that reason, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I hope that the House will therefore understand if, within the normal courtesies, I give way to intervention as little as possible. Naturally, if a particular point is raised, I shall endeavour to accommodate it.
On many occasions since abolition, the House has voted on the restoration of capital punishment. On each and every occasion, the House has consistently rejected

restoration. On each occasion, it was absolutely apparent that public opinion was in favour of restoration. Therefore, no hon. Member would fail to concede that the House has flown in the face of public opinion. [Interruption.] Please hear me. I think that it should be a matter of public record that I particularly, as the hon. Member who has moved the new clause, accept entirely that the House and its Members are not mandated, and never should be.
I accept the deep moral and religious convictions of those of my hon. Friends, and personal friends on both sides of the House, who take the opposing view to mine. I believe that we, as Members of Parliament, have a duty to listen to public opinion, but a greater duty to exercise our judgment individually. For that reason in part, I have also never subscribed to the view that we should govern the country by referendum. While I have no doubt, having seen opinion polls, that a referendum on this subject would suit my purpose, once down that road we would have to question where we would stop and how we would govern the country in future. I hope and believe, therefore, that every hon. Member will exercise his own judgment when we vote tonight, without heed to official or unofficial party Whips or any other matters of which you, of course, have no knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
New clause 1 seeks to reintroduce capital punishment as the maximum available sentence for the crime of murder, and does so without stipulating any categories. It therefore also seeks to give a jury power to recommend a sentence to the judge. What lit does not do—I wish to refer to this later—is seek to give the jury power to sentence. That power would remain, as hitherto, with the courts.
The new clause and amendments have been the subject of much public debate in recent weeks, and therefore of much criticism. I have endeavoured to respond to the comments and queries raised by my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, and I should like to cover some of them publicly today. First, eyebrows have been raised over the proposal to introduce a maximum available sentence, rather than the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder that has been on the statute book in the past. Sir Ian Percival, when he was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, informed the House in our last debate on this subject that he beleved that only a mandatory sentence would act as a true deterrent. While I supported the general thrust of his learned argument, I differed with him on that point. I believe that the reverse is true, and that the mere possibility that a criminal might face the capital consequences of his act would constitute a deterrent. I wish to pursue the deterrent argument again a little later.
Some have questioned the fact that the new clause contains no category of murder. Should we reintroduce capital punishment for terrorism, for the murder of police officers or officers of the Crown while on duty and in uniform, for the murder of children or for premeditated murder? The new clause seeks to reintroduce capital punishment as a maximum available sentence for all crimes of murder, because no two crimes are the same. It seeks to take into account the particular circumstances surrounding any one crime.
Perhaps most controversial has been the suggestion that the jury should have the power to recommend a sentence to the court. But it is the jury, is it not, who hear the evidence, see the demeanour of the accused and see each and every witness to the trial? The jury must therefore


be in a particular and privileged position to determine not only whether the alleged perpetrator of a crime is indeed guilty, but whether the crime is so heinous and so vile as to warrant the maximum sentence.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gale: I have said that, within the courtesies of the House, I do not wish to give way——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that he might.

Mr. Gale: —because I want as many hon. Members as possible on both sides of the House to have the opportunity to make a full contribution.
It has been suggested to me that a jury in such circumstances might feel intimidated, and would be less likely to return a guilty verdict knowing that they would then have to make some recommendation on what should happen after the verdict had been returned.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They used to recommend mercy. This is the obverse of that.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am coming to that point. There is good precedent for such a recommendation. Juries in the past, and indeed today, not uncommonly recommend that clemency or, alternatively, stringency be exercised in the sentence following the verdict that they have delivered. There is no suggestion that juries were intimidated in the past when they not only had the opportunity to recommend a sentence, but knew for certain that if they passed a guilty verdict in certain circumstances they would be condemning a human being to death. Juries in the past have carried out that task, I do not say with pleasure, but certainly as an act of duty, and I have no doubt that a modern jury is just as capable of performing the same task.
It has been suggested that in some way the jury will be given the power to pass sentence. This element of the new clause has been widely represented in the media. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) drew that salient fact to my attention this morning. It would not be possible for the jury to pass sentence, for only the judge and then the court, following the determination of guilt, have access to all the other factors—to a record of previous crimes or to previous sentences.
For that reason, I believe that it is absolutely correct that the jury should return its verdict and then, on the evidence that it has heard in the trial, make a recommendation. It will then properly be left to the judge and the court, in the knowledge of all the other factors, to decide whether to adopt the jury's recommendation or to ignore it; or, where a jury does not recommend, perhaps—in the light of a previous record—to impose the maximum sentence nevertheless. It will, as always in the past, be open to the defence to appeal against sentence. Under the new Criminal Justice Act which the Bill will become, it will also be open to the prosecution in the light of a jury recommendation overlooked by the judge to seek the right to appeal against sentence.
I have, of course, had to take into account the circumstances currently prevailing in Northern Ireland, where there are at present no juries. In those

circumstances, as with any other case that is currently tried in Northern Ireland, the judge alone will have to reach his decision. I fervently hope that the day will soon come when it will be possible to return to jury trial in Northern Ireland, but until that day I believe that we have courageous judges in Northern Ireland who are capable of carrying out that duty. Once again, if a judge decides not to impose the maximum sentence, the prosecution, under the new Act, will have the right to appeal.
This is a moral issue and as such the subject, I hope, of a completely free vote. This is the time and the place for each hon. Member to exercise his or her judgment and to take into account deeply personal views. I should like to take just a few moments to place mine on record. I have never been an advocate of the reintroduction of hanging. I have said consistently that I believe the ritual of hanging to be medieval and barbaric. Notwithstanding a Daily Telegraph article titled by a sub-editor:
Why I believe in hanging",
I do not believe that there is any nice way to take the life of another human being but there are available more humane ways, if it is necessary, than simply stringing somebody up.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Gale: I said that I did not wish to give way. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his own contribution later.
I have also had to address myself, particularly in the light of the questions that have been put to me personally and publicly in recent days, to the possibility of error. I have to accept, as any hon. Member must, that human justice is fallible. So I have to accept that the possibility of error, and therefore of wrongful execution, exists. But since abolition, more than 50 murderers have been released from prison to kill again. I do not wish to suggest to the House that had this amendment been on the statute book all those victims would be alive today, because that would be nonsense, but at least some of them would be alive. If this amendment were to save one life, that would make worth while the risk that I and my hon. Friends accept.
I have been asked why I am introducing the amendment. I do not seek vengeance or punishment; I seek solely a deterrent. Prior to the abolition of capital punishment, the overall trend in homicide was down. In the year immediately before abolition there was a slight rise, but the overall trend was down when the overall trend in every other crime was up. Immediately following abolition there was a dramatic increase not only in homicide, but, perhaps more significantly, in armed and violent crime.
It is an absolute and substantiated fact that prior to abolition the professional criminal as a general rule did not carry weapons. Not only did he not carry weapons but he would search his colleagues before going out on a job to ensure that nobody was carrying a weapon. Hon. Members on both sides will no doubt remember the "George Davis is innocent" campaign. At that time, I, as a professional reporter, met a number of large and sinister gentlemen from the east end of London. I was informed that they used not to carry weapons and that they regarded those who did as amateurs but that since abolition it had become commonplace for the professional criminal to go out armed.
We voted on this subject only a few months ago, so why am I introducing it again now? Of course, it is a new


Parliament and there are new Members who have not had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the subject. I hope and believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that new Members should have that opportunity, but for me there is a much more serious reason which lies in clause 42 of the Bill.
Under clause 42, the penalty for carrying a gun in the perpetration of a crime will be the same as the penalty for using a gun and the penalty for murder—life imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for whom I have the highest regard, has told the House that he believes that life imprisonment should mean life. His opposition to my new clause is well known. Therefore, when he addresses the House I have to ask him to tell me and others what reason the criminal will have, when cornered, not to pull the trigger.
The police, security guards and the public-spirited will no longer be able to face with safety the duty which they wish to carry out unless we have capital punishment on the statute book as the ultimate deterrent. Tonight the House will vote not just for the death penalty but either for the reintroduction of capital punishment or by implication for the introduction within a short time of a fully armed police force. I do not like either option, but I prefer the former to the latter.
This is an emotive subject. It is a matter of life and death. It is not only a matter of the life and death of the convicted criminal; it is a matter of the life and death of small children, of rape victims, of the elderly, and of the men and women of the police force whom we require to implement our law. I hope and believe that, having heard all the arguments, the House will vote for the new clause tonight.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I should clarify what I said earlier to him. What we are voting upon today on new clause 1 is the principle of capital punishment. If it is carried, there will be a Division on amendment (b). I have not selected for Division new clauses 11 and 15.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has moved his new clause with force and clarity, as we would expect, and he has done more. I agree with him that it is natural and right that the House should wish to discuss the matter fairly early in the life of this Parliament. His initiative has given us an apt opportunity to do so.
I think it would be right to follow today a convention which has grown up over the years—that the holder of my office should first set out some of the factual and statistical background, then offer some analysis of the proposal before the House, and finally, and in this case briefly, add his personal views.
So we start with the statistics. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said during the debate in 1983, we cannot avoid doing so, but it would be a mistake if we expected the figures to give us an unequivocal answer. I do not think that anyone is likely to base his or her vote tonight on statistics alone, but here they are for what they are worth.

The number of offences initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales last year was 689. That figure has increased, with some fluctuations, since the late 1950s. In the decade from 1956 to 1965, the average number of recorded homicides each year was 294; in the following decade, from 1966 to 1975, it was 450; from 1976 to 1985, it averaged 580. We need to qualify those figures in a number of ways. In the first place many homicides turn out to have been manslaughter rather than murder. The number of convictions for murder has also been rising, although it is substantially lower. In recent years there have been between 150 and 170 convictions for murder each year.
Secondly, the rise in the number of homicides has been markedly slower than the rise in other violent crime. The number of recorded homicides in the 20 years from 1966 to 1985 was 60 per cent. higher than in the preceding 20 years, from 1946 to 1965. But the number of' serious violent offences was 160 per cent. higher, and the total of recorded crime of all kinds—20 years against 20 years—was 220 per cent. higher.
Perhaps it would be useful to take a longer historical view. The highest levels of homicide, as a proportion of population, were recorded in the latter part of the last century. The peak was 1·96 homicides per 100,000 population in 1865, compared with 1·38 last year. The period between the wars and immediately after the last war was one in which homicide was running at a substantially lower rate. Since the sixties, it has climbed back to roughly where it was in the late 1880s, but not to the level of the 1860s.
If we are considering the figures, we must look also at the circumstances in which those offences are committed. It is fairly well known that about half of all homicides result from a quarrel, revenge or loss of temper. In about another 15 per cent., the suspect commits suicide or is mentally disturbed. Almost three quarters of homicides involve victims and suspects who are acquainted with each other, often within a family.
So the statistics can and no doubt will he used both ways in the argument about deterrence. I have tried not to steer them in either direction. On the one hand, it is true that there has been a steady increase in homicide since the death penalty was abolished. On the other hand, that increase has not matched the general increase in crime; it is possible to trace it back to the period before abolition; and homicide was proportionately at its highest in the middle of the last century, when the death penalty was routinely imposed. As I said in the debate last year—I shall not repeat the figures—in the days of capital punishment, when the number of executions went up or down substantially from year to year, there was not a clear relationship between the number of executions in any year and the number of homicides in the immediately following period.
As others have done, I have looked at the research in other countries to see if it would add to the picture. The two leading American studies point in opposite directions and give rise to much academic dispute, but give no clear conclusion. The only conclusion that one can draw from the American experience is that, both in states where they have capital punishment and in the others where they have not, their murder rates are consistently and substantially higher than ours.
If the only consideration—the one my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North spent, understandably, some


time on—were to secure the public from even the smallest risk that a convicted murderer would kill again, then of course putting him to death provides that assurance. Offences of homicide committed by those who have previously been convicted of murder are rare. We know of only nine cases—I state this because other figures have been put—in which someone convicted of murder after the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 has later killed again. On the information available to us, we judge that at least six of those nine, and perhaps more, would not have been treated as capital murders under the Homicide Act 1957 had those offences occurred before abolition. In short, in only a handful of cases—at the most three—is it likely that a life would have been saved by the execution of a murderer in the period since abolition.
Nevertheless, whatever the right figure—I would argue that it is a small one—no one can deny that the death penalty is a sure means, although imperfectly targeted, of preventing reoffending. Perhaps at this point I should remind the House that those most likely to suffer the death penalty were it to be reintroduced—the perpetrators of the most heinous murders—would as a result of the policy introduced in 1983 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, which I am continuing, normally expect to serve at least 20 years in prison and in some cases still longer. In a number of cases that will mean imprisonment until the end of the prisoner's life. There is no question of vicious murderers being let out after a few years of imprisonment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where does my right hon. Friend get the figure of nine for the number of murderers who have killed again? That is not the understanding of many hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Hurd: People use homicide as if it were the same as murder. The other is that, even in the case of murderers, of course, one has to ask whether in the days when there was capital punishment, or if in future we entered into one of the schemes proposed before the House, all murderers would or will be executed. We have to take both those matters into account in working out the figures. The result is then the result that I have given to the House.
In reply to the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, I would say that the deterrent to the offender whom he postulated pulling the trigger is that he would be more likely to receive the maximum of life imprisonment if he did so, since we are talking about maximum penalties and not mandatory ones. Judges are generally imposing longer sentences for violent offences and the actual time served for punishment by life sentence prisoners—often called the tariff—will take account of that. Each case has to be considered by the Home Office on its merits, but I can tell the House that there will be an increase in the time thus served.
I now come to the specific new clause and the amendments associated with it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the new clause, will he tell the House two things? First, where a convicted person is already serving the maximum sentence, what is the disincentive to him murdering warders to effect an escape or murdering policemen who try to re-arrest him?

Mr. Hurd: That is one question. The convicted murderer will have to assess the likelihood, which will vary according to circumstances, that he will spend all his natural life inside prison. Before he commits that further offence, he must weigh against that the chance of being let out to spend part of his natural life outside, which he will prejudice and sacrifice. That is the calculation that he will have to make.
The big debate about capital punishment in the late 1940s and 1950s arose partly from a campaign for abolition as a matter of principle. However, it also arose from a dissatisfaction about the blanket nature of the penalty. For example, as the House has often recalled, there were the cases of Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis which mustered the anxiety of many people. The view which gained ground in the early 1950s was that, even though the system was softened because the Home Secretary could recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, it was unduly harsh for death to be the automatic penalty in all cases of murder.
So the Homicide Act 1957 attempted to define degrees of murder, and gave a statutory definition of the murders which would in future attract the capital penalty. However, that ran into trouble. There were inconsistencies and anomalies that incurred a further sense of dissatisfaction which went beyond the principle of capital punishment. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and my other hon. Friends are trying to get around that problem in a slightly different way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North would specify the death penalty as the maximum for murder, and would also give the jury an opportunity to recommend to the judge that he use the discretion in any particular case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and others would simply specify death as the maximum penalty for murder, thus leaving the matter entirely to the sentencing judge, with no role for the jury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and those who have signed his amendment, would put the judge in a slightly different position, with a power to recommend to the Home Secretary that a penalty should be imposed where the murder has involved premeditation, brutality or callousness.
All three approaches would confer on the sentencing judge a discretion which neither he nor the Home Secretary had in the days before the abolition of capital punishment. In those days, a judge had no choice but to impose the death penalty. Even the Home Secretary—although he had an unenviable job—was charged only with deciding whether the law should take its course, not whether the sentence in some cases should be death and in others a period of imprisonment.
5.30 pm
That was precisely the point which the Royal Commission on capital punishment, under Sir Ernest Gowers, reported on in 1953. The commission considered—and rejected—the idea that the sentencing judge might have discretion over the use of the death penalty. It feared that it would lead to inconsistent practice and that it would put an intolerable burden on the judge. A short extract from the commission's report states:
the responsibility of deciding whether a person convicted of murder should be sentenced to death or to a lesser punishment is too heavy a burden to impose on any single individual. The sentence of death differs absolutely, not in degree, from any


other sentence; and it would be wholly inconsistent with our traditional approach to such issues to lay on the shoulders of the Judge a responsibility so grave and so invidious.
That was the judgment of the Gowers commission on that point.
After I had seen the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, I thought it sensible to ask the Lord ChiefJustice to express a view, not on the merits of capital punishment, but on the possibility that the judiciary might have a role in deciding which murders should be punished by death. With Lord Lane's permission, I can tell the House that he would be strongly opposed to my hon. Friend's proposal. It should, in his view, be for Parliament, not the judges, to decide which types of murder should be met with death and which should not. Some individual variations in lengths of sentences of imprisonment are, the Lord Chief Justice believes, inevitable and acceptable, but individual variations in decisions of life and death would be inevitable and unacceptable. Quite apart from the wider question of whether capital punishment for murder should be restored, a matter on which I asked for no view from Lord Lane and on which he expressed no view, he regards my hon. Friend's proposal as unworkable.
Lord Lane's point about consistency of outcome——

Mr. David Ashby: Does not the view of the present Lord Chief Justice accord almost precisely with the view of Lord Chief Justice Parker who was also quite against the 1957 Act because of its arbitrary nature and because it was unworkable?

Mr. Hurd: My history does not go back as far as that of my hon. Friend, but I will take his word for it if he tells me that that is so.
Lord Lane's point about consistency is particularly important for the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, because of the way in which it brings the jury into the picture. I am not sure how that would work in practice. A jury is the right body to determine the question of guilt or innocence on a serious charge, but under our system a jury are never left without guidance. They are directed as to the principles of law which they should apply. The proposed new clause does not give an inkling as to how the jury should exercise the new discretion. It does not state or suggest the way in which the trial judge should direct them, nor even whether it would be right for him to attempt to do so. It does not state whether the jury should be unanimous—a crucial consideration, since conviction can be by a qualified majority.
Although I could list other gaps in the proposal, those points are questions of principle and not of mere drafting detail. It is reasonable to put them to my hon. Friend because, after all, we are not discussing a general proposition or a motion; we are discussing a new clause which, if accepted, will become the law of the land, if it passes in another place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North addressed the point about a right of appeal. As he said, making the penalty a maximum would mean that there would be a right of appeal, and I imagine that that would be exercised in almost every case. My hon. Friend did not shirk the consequences of that. However, as a result of another proposal in the Bill, it would be logical for the Attorney-General to be able to refer to the Court of Appeal an unduly lenient sentence under the provisions in

this Bill, with a view to a more severe sentence—presumably including death—being substituted. My hon. Friend made it clear that that is part of his proposal.
Therefore, we would have the situation in which an offender had been convicted and sentenced, presumably to imprisonment, by the court in a perfectly regular way and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would be expected and would be able, if he wished, to go to the Court of Appeal and ask that the person serving that sentence of imprisonment should be taken out and put to death if the Court of Appeal so agreed. If we look at that prospect, we can, to put it mildly, see its difficulties.
I fully understand the way in which the minds of my hon. Friend and his colleagues have worked in moving forward from proposals which have not found favour in the past. However, I do not honestly believe that my hon. Friend's proposal represents a completely satisfactory alternative to the blanket mandatory penalty which. for different reasons, proved unsatisfactory in the years after the war.
If one is looking for a deterrent or at the theory of deterrence—which, for reasons that I have given, I do not accept, although my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North does—one comes to the conclusion that the point of a deterrent is that it should be reasonably certain and that the potential murderer should be reasonably sure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that he will suffer the worst punishment if caught and convicted. However, that would not be the effect of the new clause, which takes a broad-brush view of the question of life and death and which would ensure a good deal of inconsistency and uncertainty in the imposition of capital punishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North also addressed the question of Northern Ireland, on which two points arise. The first is whether the imposition of the death penalty would, looked at coolly and objectively, help or hinder the struggle against terrorism. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) bears on that point. The second point is not in the form in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North put it. It is not really a question whether the judges in the Province are courageous or not; it is a question whether it would ever be right to impose the death penalty on someone who had not been convicted by the verdict of a jury. That is a substantial difficulty. However, it is hard to imagine how two terrorist actions taking place, perhaps simultaneously, in Liverpool and Belfast could be punished by the death penalty on one side of the water but not on the other.
In that context I thought it right—as I did last time—to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and he in turn, as he has done in the past, consulted Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. My right hon. Friend's view is that the death penalty would not represent any significant deterrent to the terrorists. The Chief Constable's view is that the restoration of the death penalty for terrorist murders would increase the difficulties faced by the RUC, a view which is shared by his senior colleagues. These are conclusions which, from my own still fairly recent experience in the Province, I strongly endorse.

Mr. David Winnick: Apart from making martyrs of those who are undoubtedly engaged in evil—and terrorism is evil—is it not the case that capital punishment would hardly act as a deterrent to the IRA or


other terrorists in the Province, bearing in mind that in 1981 the hunger strikers continued their strike until they died? If they were willing to take that action and to starve themselves to death, how could the death penalty be any kind of deterrent?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will be able to develop that argument if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Looking to the future, we are now drafting a new Prevention of Terrorism Bill and we shall be——

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute if I can just finish my point.
We shall seek, with the approval of Parliament, to strengthen our defences against terrorism, in particular by making it easier to get at the funds on which terrorists depend. It would be bizarre if, at the same time, we took a step which would, in my view, be likely to increase the flow of money, and therefore guns, into terrorist hands.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries in Northern Ireland of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was the Police Federation for Northern Ireland consulted? After all, the Chief Constable is not in the front line in Northern Ireland. It is the ordinary man who does his duty in difficult circumstances, so surely his voice should be heard.

Mr. Hurd: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman may well be right in his analysis of the view held by the Police Federation on that side of the water. I was simply recording the clear opinions, derived from experience, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and of the Chief Constable and his senior colleagues and those who are in charge of the campaign against terrorism in the Province.

Mr. Tony Fayell: While on the subject of terrorism, will my right hon. Friend deal with two points? The first is that a terrorist expects, eventually, to win his argument. Therefore, a prison sentence is no real deterrent because he expects to be released eventually under political amnesty, whereas capital punishment deters because no amnesty will help. Secondly, what about further atrocities committed by colleagues of the terrorist to secure his release if he is not to have the ultimate punishment?

Mr. Hurd: The second case would apply with even greater force and ferocity while the prisoner was awaiting execution if he had been condemned to death. I do not go along with my hon. Friend's analysis on his first point.
I shall conclude with three short points. The first is about the nature of this debate. Every hon. Member and anyone in tune with the worries of this country is deeply concerned about violent crime, but if capital punishment were restored it would be applied only to some murderers. Yet we are all familiar with the argument which starts with anecdotes about broken windows or hooliganism—a minor disorder—and leads straight to the argument that capital punishment should be restored. Murder is the foulest of crimes, but it is one tenth of 1 per cent. of violent crimes and less than one hundreth of 1 per cent. of all recorded crime. It is right that we should discuss this proposal, but it may deflect our attention and energies

from the real issues of how to check and reverse the general rise in violent crime which has continued since the mid-1950s.
I shall not labour my personal views, because they are the views of one Member of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must listen to the views of our constituents and each form his or her judgment on this matter and vote accordingly. Like many others, I am swayed by the prospect that if capital punishment were reintroduced, from time to time we would execute innocent people, and I am swayed by the point about terrorism. Two further short points which are not often developed seem to go to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to the end, so if I may I shall conclude and my hon. Friend can make his speech later.
After a brutal murder, there can be few people who do not have the immediate reaction that the perpetrator is too wicked to live. It is natural that that should most often be the view of the family and friends of the victim, although after Eniskillen we saw moving exceptions to that. Fierce, honourable anger immediately after the event is one thing; it is another to institute slow, cold processes of justice with months filled by the argument of lawyers and the hearing of appeals, at the end of which the judges or the Home Secretary may decide, long after the event, that the offender should cease to exist. An execution in this way, whether by hanging or by other means, can surely give only fleeting satisfaction, if any, to the public or those who knew the victim.
There is another effect. In earlier centuries, executions were public, but these were abolished in 1868 and we had nearly a century of private executions in prison. Since capital punishment was abolished, we have seen an explosion in the pervasiveness of the media and in the power of the searchlight which they turn on dramatic events. If we restored capital punishment, we would restore, not private, but public executions. It would not be a matter, as in past days, of a date recorded in an alcove in the Home Secretary's office in Whitehall or later of some discreet notice posted on the prison gate to be read by a handful of watchers.
Whatever the regulations and precautions, in practice in the weeks before execution a searchlight of publicity would beat upon the condemned man long after his victim had been forgotten. He and his family would become famous, and friends and family would be persuaded to record their story and emotions. I do not know what effect all that would have on the proposed deterrent power of capital punishment, but it might be the opposite of what was intended. Whatever the rules and efforts of Governments, such a circus would be created, as it has been elsewhere, and it would be greatly to the discredit of our society, which would soon sicken of it.
The arguments surge to and fro on this subject, and I have tried to do justice to them. Each of us is left to make a fundamental and instinctive judgment, and mine is certainly that this is a form of punishment to which we should not return.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Most hon. Members know how they will vote at the end of


today's debate and knew before the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) moved his new clause. Most of us knew of our intentions before the Leader of the House announced the date on which this long-heralded and much-publicised debate was to be held. On both sides of the argument, opinions on capital punishment are held with passions too deep and convictions too strong to be changed by one afternoon's debate. Those passions and convictions are based on two different sorts of argument and attitude. One is instinctive—the argument in principle—and the other pragmatic—the chief point made by the hon. Gentleman: that in some way the reintroduction of capital punishment would improve the safety and quality of life in our society.
I shall spend the first of my few moments dealing with the instinctive call for the return of capital punishment—the feeling that it should be part of our society and penal practice. I well recall the Prime Minister on television during the 1983 general election campaign simply asserting that some murderers are so evil and some murders so hideous that capital punishment is instinctively the only appropriate punishment. That is not a judgment, but a statement of gut feeling.
The notion that it is, in the common phrase, "only right" that murderers should die cannot be subject to logical examination. The insistence that the bestiality of one violent and unnecessary death should be paralleled by another act of similar violence sanctioned and carried out with the grotesque formality of the state cannot be justified in logic. It is at best the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—a moral judgment which was later qualified out of existence by impeccable authority. The bald assertion that murderers "deserve to die" can be justified only by the belief that retribution and revenge are implicit and important ingredients of the criminal code. I do not believe that the House of Commons should or will write such a primitive instinct into our laws.
The instinctive call for the return of the death penalty is typified by the opinion that some murderers have—I use the Prime Minister's phrase—
forfeited the right to live.
The Home Secretary, criticising that view, offered his alternative: the feeling that some murderers are "too wicked to live". I do not believe that any individual or institution is entitled to make that judgment about a human being.
Those of us who are opposed to capital punishment accept that our opposition is similar to the sort of support that I have just described—it is in part emotional. I confess that I cannot imagine circumstances in which I would vote for the return of hanging or any other form of execution for any offence. A reversion to such a practice would debase and literally demoralise us all, certainly if, as the Home Secretary fears—and I have no doubt that his fears are justified—in this modern era capital punishment were accompanied by all the horrors of media attention. [Interruption.] Even were I to believe that capital punishment was a deterrent to murder or violent crime, I would not vote for its reintroduction. It is wrong in itself, for it undermines the principle of the sanctity of human life on which all our laws are based.
Having established my position in principle, I want mostly to turn to the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent, because that was the point that the hon. Gentleman made and that will inevitably take up a great deal of this debate.
When I say that I wholly reject the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent, I am quoting from virtually every authority that has made a judgment on the subject. That argument seems not only wrong but diametrically wrong. Murder and crimes of violence are, at least in part, related to the general mores of society—the acceptance or the rejection of the idea that violence can, in itself, solve some of society's problems. A violent society breeds violent crimes. To reintroduce the death penalty would be to institutionalise the most extreme form of violence. It would be an expression of Parliament's opinion that some lives are so cheap that they can be taken as a punishment. It is no good asking, as the Prime Minister has often done, the rhetorical question about whether murderers have such considerations in mind when they commit their horrible crimes. I expect the House of Commons to behave differently from them. I expect the House of Commons to have a different standard of values. We are supposed to act differently from such people., and we are supposed to respect the sanctity of human life.
The Home Secretary was right to say that to concentrate upon the reintroduction of capital punishment as if it were the certain way of reducing murder and violent crime is to divert attention from the remedies that are potentially more successful Immense damage has been done to the serious consideration, and therefore reduction, of crime in this country by the weak-minded insistence that flogging and hanging will solve all our problems and reduce violence. That attitude has diverted us from the real deterrent, which is the certainty of arrest, the certainty of prosecution and the certainty of conviction if guilty.
With regard to the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent, it is right to say that every authority that has made a judgment—save for a group of New Liberal economists in the United States who examined death in the language of supply and demand—has concluded that the evidence on death as a deterrent proves absolutely nothing. In the 1983 debate, the then Home Secretary said of statistics:
we should be making a great mistake if we expected them to give us an unequivocal answer."—[Official Report, 13 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 886.]
As one might expect, in the previous debate his predecessor, Lord Whitelaw, was far more robust and categoric. Talking about the evidence on deterrence, he said:
the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive."—[Official Report, 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
That was also the judgment of the Royal Commission of 1953.
That judgment is reinforced by a comparison of murder statistics in those American states that have abolished the death penalty with those that have not. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the Canadian experience, where the murder rate fell after abolition. If we are so minded to interpret British experience, that is the evidence from this country. Although the murder rate has increased since abolition, it has increased at a much slower pace than other crimes of violence.
The truth of the matter is that one cannot say with anything resembling certainty whether capital punishment is a deterrent. That one is unable to say that should not surprise us. Sixty per cent. of murders are committed by men and women whose mental condition would allow them successfully to plead diminished responsibility; 75 per cent. of murders are committed within the family or in


a close circle of acquaintance, often as a result of sudden impulse or uncontrollable passion. Only an extremely small proportion of murderers pause to consider—even less, coldly, to premeditate upon—the consequences of their actions. If they do not think about that before they commit the murder, it is literally impossible for any penalty, no matter how severe, no matter how terrible, to influence their actions and prevent that murder from taking place. If there is a deterrent effect—I repeat that there is no evidence that can lead us to that firm conclusion—it can only possibly apply to one murder in five.
Some hon. Members—traditionally the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and today the hon. Member for Thanet, North—argue that the death penalty for murder deters other crimes of violence. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds always quoted the hypothetical burglar who, before the days of abolition, would not allow his confederate to carry a gun. He claimed the knock-on effect which, by the expedient of hanging one or two murderers, prevented other crimes of violence from taking place. The hon. Gentleman's theory, true or false, demonstrates to me the great dilemma of the theory of deterrence or, at least, the deterrent of the death penalty. I am not at all sure that it is morally right to hang one man to deter another. I am sure that it cannot possibly be right to hang one man to prevent another from committing a violent crime that is less than murder itself, especially as we have no hard evidence to prove that that deterrent would work.
If, once or twice a year, we are to hang one of our fellow citizens by the neck until he is dead—or if we are to gas him, poison him, electrocute him or shoot him—we need to justify the horrors that are involved by more than suspicions, vague impressions, hunches and venerable anecdotes. Among the horrors is the absolute bestiality of the process of execution, a subject about which the supporters of capital punishment naturally prefer not to speak. The hon. Member for Thanet, North almost broke a rule by confessing that the alternatives were "not nice". I believe that anyone who read the Gower report—the supplementary report on alternative methods of capital punishment—would agree with the hon. Gentleman at least about that.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once it is established that the statistics leave the matter open, that does not leave the argument neutral? If capital punishment were a deterrent, that, in view of the manifest research which has been carried out, would have been clearly established by now.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand the statistical and logical argument that my right hon. and learned Friend makes. If the position is neutral, it is impossible to argue other than the likelihood that capital punishment has little or no effect. Were it a deterrent, that would be shown by curves, movements and trends.
Let us consider the alternative methods of execution. There is no hope—supporters of a return to capital punishment should not hide behind the comforting pretence—that we can find an alternative method of execution that is any less barbarous than hanging. The Gower report on alternative forms of execution was

absolutely explicit. It said that the alternatives to hanging were equally macabre, debasing to those who took part and corrosive of a civilised society.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country what is nice about the murder of small, innocent children? How can he reconcile that with what he is saying about the punishment of the perpetrators of such crimes?

Mr. Hattersley: I believe that such questions debase the entire argument. There is a clear implication in the question of the hon. Member that those of us who are opposed to capital punishment have some sympathy for the people she describes. We hold an opposite view. First, we do not believe that the return to capital punishment would deter the enormities that she has outlined; secondly, we believe that by being complacent about additional violence sanctified by society, by accepting the institutionalisation of such violence, we may encourage violent actions among our citizens.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) does her cause no good by implying that those of us who want to take a rational view on this matter want to take a soft and weak view. I repeat that one of the reasons crime has increased in this country is that too many people like her have adopted the weak-minded alternative of thinking that flogging and hanging will solve the problems. They will not. We need a far more rational attitude to crime than she has been able to offer us.

Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would settle his mind on the situation in Northern Ireland at the time when we were told that if the Prime Minister and the Government did not yield to the hunger strikers there would be untold trouble. A few more people volunteered to go on hunger strike, but those who volunteered after that came off the hunger strike because they were afraid of death.

6 pm

Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal explicitly with Northern Ireland and hunger strikers in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the creation of martyrs is more likely to continue the conflict in Northern Ireland, he is ignoring the troubled history of that Province over the last 300 years.
I should like to continue the point that I was making before the interruption by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I was talking about the consequential horrors of capital punishment. Some people, including the hon. Member for Thanet, North, speak about the risk, but many people, myself included, would argue that the greatest horror of all is the certainty that if we return to capital punishment an innocent man or woman will sooner or later be hanged.
The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) sent to virtually every hon. Member the names of 10 men who in our recent history were wrongfully convicted, then pardoned. [Interruption.] It is a terrifying thought that decisions about capital punishment, the life or death of human beings, should be in some part taken by people whose emotional level is of the sort that we have seen in this debate. Of the 10 people on the hon. and learned Gentleman's list, one was executed and nine were eventually released. There is no doubt at all


that if the present proposal were in operation, five or six of those nine men would have been hanged. I cannot begin to justify a proposal that makes risk a possibility.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North said that by hanging an innocent man we might save the lives of a dozen potential victims. That idea seems to be taking marginal utility to unreasonable extremes. The idea that we might sacrifice one innocent life and save 10 others is wholly unacceptable by any moral canon that it is possible to construct. I hope that on reflection no hon. Member will vote for the notion that hanging somebody by mistake is the price that we have to pay to create the order in society that we propose and want to see.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North has attempted, as his predecessors have attempted, to win some support by saying that while he wants a return to the death penalty he does not want to return to it for all offences. By proposing a partial return of the death penalty he is offering the House judicial confusion and moral nonsense. The idea of hanging some murderers in the circumstances and in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described is barely less absurd than the notion of exceptional wickedness which supporters of capital punishment tried to write into law in the last debate.
With respect, the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's case was demonstrated by his speech, because his proposal raises many hard questions and he attempted to answer none of them. He suggested that we should reintroduce hanging for some sorts of murder but he was not prepared to describe the categories. As he continued his speech he gave a few examples. To reintroduce hanging for premeditated murder, for murder in the furtherance of theft, for the murder of policemen and for murder by terrorists raises many questions which the hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer.
Let us assume that the murder of a policeman might come into this category. That is what the hon. Gentleman implied towards the end of his speech. He must tell us why it is morally worse or deserving of a more severe punishment to kill a policeman rather than a civilian. How are we to determine in law what is meant by premeditated? Who judges the true meaning of premeditated?

Mr. Gale: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I have a list of questions for the hon. Gentleman; I shall ask them all and he can answer them.
The proposed new clause sidesteps other great questions. There is the question whether the decision to hang should he made by a combination of judge and jury or a jury's recommendation and a judge's final decision. Will criteria to guide the jury be laid down or does a jury go into such matters with a totally open mind? Do jury members make their own subjective and instinctive judgments as they go along? I do not think that a judge and jury would be prepared to accept such a responsibility. How could a judge or jury possibly make a decision without being told the lines along which the decision is to be made? We must assume that they start by obeying the dictates of their consciences.
Does the juror, or for that matter the judge, weigh expediency against morality in a case where a horrible crime has been committed and to execute the murderer may well result in a holocaust of reprisals? Are pragmatic questions to be put out of their minds? Does the jury or the judge call for a psychiatric report before making a

decision? Are we to get uniformity in sentencing? Are there to be hanging juries and hanging judges, and will some murderers be lucky enough to appear before lenient judges and jurors? Will hanging be a matter for majority decision? Could there be two men on the jury who think that the sentenced man is innocent but 10 who decide that he should die? Does the jury's decision on the death penalty have to be unanimous?
All those questions are central to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and since he seemed anxious a moment ago to answer some or all of them, I shall now give way to him.

Mr. Gale: I was reluctant to intervene, having denied other hon. Members the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has sought so greatly to misrepresent my speech that I can only conclude that he did not hear it. I specifically said that I was not seeking to define any category of murder, and that the maximum sentence would be available for any and every murder at i he decision of the court and the recommendation of the jury. That is because each and every case is different.
There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman sitting with a smug grin on his face suggesting that that is incorrect. The whole House heard what I said. I have deliberately sought not to lay down criteria, because I do not see how it is possible to lay down criteria for individual cases. The new clause seeks to allow the court and especially the jury who have heard the evidence to make a recommendation in each and every individual case.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about psychiatric reports. I specifically answered that point by saying that the jury would recommend but that it would be the judge, with the additional information before him, who would be required to make the final decision.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be uniformity. The answer to that is no, because, as I have said, there is no uniformity in crime. Each case is individual and must be judged as an individual case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman asked about majority decisions. It is quite clear that I have not made any recommendation about that, because the country already accepts the principle of majority decision.

Mr. Hattersley: I am reluctant to ridicule the hon. Gentleman, because his proposal seems too terrible to ridicule. However, since it is intrinsically ridiculous, if he is really saying that there is to be no recommendation and no uniformity, has he ever considered the pattern of sentencing for other offences throughout the United Kingdom? Does he not know that what happens in Bournemouth does not necessarily happen in Barnsley and that sentences in Southport are different from those in Stockton? Is he really contemplating a situation in which a murderer might know that he would be let off, at least from the death penalty, in one part of the country but hanged in another? The proposal is so intrinsically ridiculous that I cannot believe that anyone will vote for it this evening.

Mr. Ashby: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that normally the prosecutor does not descend into the realms of sentencing? Are we now to have the prosecutor demanding the death penalty, as in some continental systems?

Mr. Hattersley: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is, do not ask me. As the House has begun to discover, I regard the proposals of the hon. Member for Thanet, North as wrong in principle and unworkable in practice and wholly ridiculous the moment one begins to examine the details.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I must get on, as I had taken more time than I intended before giving way to perhaps too many interventions.
I want to ask the hon. Member for Thanet, North at least one rhetorical question. It concerns the best example of why distinguishing between one form of murder and another would be wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. It can be demonstrated most clearly as it is a hard case to argue. This is the case of terrorism in Northern Ireland—or anywhere, but taking Northern Ireland as an example enables us to give it a terrifying clarity.
From time to time we are told—no doubt we shall be told this afternoon—that terrorist offences ought to be subject to the death penalty. Are we really saying that if on some future occasion a post office in Northern Ireland is robbed and the postmaster is shot dead and the murderer is captured and convicted he is to hang if the money is intended for the IRA but not if it is intended to pay off a gambling debt? That is simultaneously terrible and ridiculous. It is also wholly wrong within the context of Northern Ireland, for two reasons.
First, for almost 20 years to my certain knowledge, the IRA in Northern Ireland has tried to argue that its murderers are not common murderers and that its crimes are different from ordinary crimes. In the House, we have always insisted persistently that we are not prepared to designate terrorist crimes in any different way from the way in which we describe and categorise other crimes. To give a special category status to terrorist murder is to play absolutely into the hands of those who say, "We are doing something different." The resulting execution of IRA members would be to play into its hands in an even more dramatic form.
I am shocked that the hon. Gentleman would even contemplate the death penalty being passed on a man who had been convicted through the Northern Ireland emergency—and, God willing, temporary—system. If a man should die, surely it should be the result of a jury trial with the extra fairness that that implies. But that is only half the problem. The other half is the way in which the IRA would respond to the death of members of their active service units.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the hunger strike. I remember the hunger strike very well and I remember the IRA's attitude towards it. Not only did one man die, but, as the hon. Gentleman will confirm, members of the IRA tried to intimidate some of the hunger strikers—their own comrades—by saying that they would take horrible reprisals against their families unless the hunger strike went on until death.
The idea that people who could do anything as bestial as that would not glory in the death of their comrades and encourage their comrades to die to achieve the status of martyrs is a wholly misunderstood view of the situation in Northern Ireland. I regard it as pragmatically wrong in

terms of the peace and security of Northern Ireland to provide the IRA and other terrorists with that recruiting sergeant, which is what the death penalty would be.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I must conclude. These are my final words.
The more we consider the implications, the consequences and the results of capital punishment, the clearer it becomes that the restoration and the so-called practical benefits of restoration do not stand up to a moment's analysis. Ultimately, the call for the return to hanging is an emotional spasm, several of which we have witnessed in the House this afternoon. Were it to result in the change in the law, it would mean that society and the law had adapted to and was adopting the murderer's moral standards and the murderer's view of the sanctity of human life. For that reason, I shall certainly oppose the clause this evening, and it is with great pride that I believe that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I shall speak only briefly as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. Perhaps it is no bad thing to look back for one moment at the history of this affair.
There has not been a majority in the House for retaining hanging since 1945. The House has consistently repudiated hanging when given the opportunity. The Labour party sought to bring in a categorised Bill in the late 1940s and it was laughed out of court by a famous speech by Winston Churchill. The Conservative party introduced a Criminal Justice Bill in 1957 which undermined the whole concept of hanging because of its illogicality. Never mind free votes, it is worth noticing that that Bill was taken through the House on a three-line Whip by the then Government. Subsequently, since the Silverman Bill of the mid 1960s, there have been 18 attempts to change the law back to what it was. At least the last two occasions have got away from the concept of categorising murder because it is manifestly ridiculous. Indeed, as we have heard from both Front-Bench speakers, it is simply not possible for the House to lay down guidelines for the courts to decide before cases come to trial.
On the last two occasions, recognising the impossibility of that, there have been two attempts. One imported the idea of wickedness, which in my view was legal illiteracy and was thrown out. We now have this proposal. I want to address it very shortly to see where it would take us and whether it is any better than previous attempts.
The death penalty is to be available to the courts. I suspect that it is inevitable for hon. Members to say things that have been said before, but it is worth repeating that it is to be available to the courts. In my view, only one amendment is worth the paper on which it is printed—and I would vote against it—and that is to say that the punishment for murder shall be death and that thereafter there shall be a proper retrieve system. I would oppose that amendment as vehemently as I oppose the one under discussion, but at least it would leave us in a logical position with a straight result at the end of the trial. Everyone would know what was to happen and the case would be examined when all the facts were known.
If we leave it to the judges, what are we asking them to do? I do not know whether I am absolutely right, but I do not think that a single High Court judge is in favour of a return to hanging or capital punishment. I may be wrong on that, but I am not wrong in saying that the overwhelming majority of them are so opposed. That does not mean that they would not do their duty if they had to, but, inevitably, they would take different views. Justice would be as long as the judge's foot. The consequence of that would be that the most important duty for a solicitor would be to see which judge was coming, to look at his record and try to ensure that his client did not did not go into that court. We should not have any illusions that that would not be done.
What is the wretched judge to do? It is said that he should pronounce sentence when he knows all the facts. As every lawyer knows, the judge does not know all the facts. If someone has pleaded not guilty, the judge cannot then have psychiatric reports done to decide what will happen if he is found guilty. He cannot ask for co-operation in that way. At the end of a trial a judge simply does not know. He could not make up his mind until he had seen such reports.
The judge is then left with the unenviable task of reminding the jury before it considers its verdict that it has the right to make a recommendation. The moment a judge makes that remark, the jury will start to think that the judge has it in mind to hang the man. That will not help to obtain convictions. Let us have no illusions about that. The great British public is said to be baying for justice and talks about it in pubs, but when people are sitting in a jury box it is different. At the Old Bailey, 48 per cent. of defendants are acquitted and I would guess that about 1 per cent. are innocent. That is the problem that faces the judge. He would have to give some direction as to what considerations the jury should look at.
I do not know how it is conceivable in judicial terms to give any such direction. Would the judge draw attention to particular bestialities that occurred in the case? Would he draw attention to the fact that the court may be deciding on what had become a more prevalent form of murder? Would he draw attention to the issue of public policy and would he look at what would happen if racial issues were involved? It would be a nightmare.
However, it would not be much better for the jury. It would consider its verdict with nothing. It would go out having sat for perhaps 10 days opposite a stranger and having listened to a case presented to it of which, inevitably, it will have heard only half the story because the mitigating elements cannot possibly be put before it. Those jurors—train drivers, secretaries and housewives—would then have to make up their minds. Are they to say that a rope will he put round that person's neck? There will be plenty of murderers walking our streets after such trials. We will not achieve a conviction rate.
The new clause is an attempt to avoid the crucial questions that cannot be answered by categories. It is an attempt to get round that issue for the second time. If anything, it is even worse than categories. We all know—we have the figures before us—that in the past we have buried our mistakes with the murderers who were convicted. The issue of whether it is a deterrent may be questionable. but we have evidence showing what has happened subsequently. It is no use my hon. Friends saying that people have been released. They were released after a decision that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

In this country, if one is released after a miscarriage of justice, in my book one is innocent and that should be made clear to everyone. Ten people are walking the streets today and one person was posthumously pardoned because of the ability to look back and examine the position. Bearing that in mind as well as the uncertainty of capital punishment being a deterrent and all the problems we would have if we passed the new clause, I believe that we would do well to stick for the 18th time to the decision that the House has made so consistently.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: We shall have a free vote in party terms, but I wonder whether it will truly he a free vote. I doubt whether many of us have changed our views since being elected and I doubt even more whether anyone will change his or her view during the debate. We are all hemmed in by our instinctive reactions to this topic. It comes down to a question of belief as to whether the state is entitled to take the life of a person who takes the life of another. I believe that it is not. I suspect that my belief will obtain whatever the evidence and however passionately such evidence may be marshalled during the debate. I also suspect that those who support the new clause will support it however compelling the evidence marshalled on the other side of the argument.
I accept that my view is neither a popular nor populist one. However, I, like other hon. Members, come here as a representative and not as a delegate. It is my duty and the duty of others to take into account public opinion, but it would be a sad and sorry day for the House if we were but the reflection of that and the mouthpieces of the most vocal groups within our constituencies.
As someone who has recently been elected to this honourable House, the debate has brought home to me in a sharp way the power that we wield and the responsibility that is incumbent upon us. I suspect, like others, that I recoiled somewhat to hear an hon. Member from a sedentary position suggest that hanging should be in public and should be accompanied by television coverage. I suspect that that remark was made as a result of his passion and emotion about the topic. I cite it only to underline the fact that there is a great responsibility upon us and that in the decision we take on this topic we exercise the power of life and death.
I believe that I come to this debate with an informed view, although not an exclusively informed view. I have prosecuted successfully and defended unsuccessfully people who, with hanging, would undoubtedly have been hanged. That will not be unique in the House, but nothing in my experience as crime counsel or defence counsel has persuaded me to change my belief that capital punishment is something I could not support. A generation of lawyers has grown up with no experience of capital punishment and the way in which it would have to be administered through the legal system. In Scotland I believe that there is no judge still sitting on the bench who has pronounced the death sentence. The last such judge retired two or three years ago.
The reintroduction of capital punishment into the legal system would impose an intolerable burden on lawyers, judges and juries. The issue of intimidation must surely be in the minds of all of us arising out of the events of last week. What would be the scope for intimidation if a jury had the power to recommend life or death? It would also be an intolerable burden on witnesses. If a witness is not


quite sure as to precisely what he saw at the material moment in the commission of a crime, what pressure would there be on him to give evidence in one direction or another, having regard to the fact that the consequence of that evidence might be the recommendation of a jury that the man or woman in the dock should be hanged? That would be a substantial price. We must ask whether we should be prepared to pay that price. The moral inconvenience of lawyers and the pressure on juries or witnesses might be a price that it would be justifiable to pay if it could be shown that the possible benefits outweighed the calculated horror of reimposition.
6.30 pm
The new clause is put fairly and squarely on the basis of deterrence. I do not wish to add to what was most eloquently said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but one is entitled to say, echoing the old but existing Scots verdict, "The case is not proven." If the case is not proven, it is not open to us to change the status quo unless we are presented with compelling evidence that justifies the reintroduction of capital punishment.
It has already been said that the majority of homicides are domestic, and arise out of passion, emotion, rage and, frequently, drink. I find it hard to believe that those homicides would be deterred by the retrospective knowledge that capital punishment might be imposed.
The issue of terrorism has been mentioned. We know that in many cases terrorists prefer martyrdom to life. Without passing judgment on the events in Gibraltar, may I say that any terrorist recalling those events must know that to be a terrorist on active service undoubtedly puts him at risk of his life.
What about the position of police and prison officers? Shall we endure the calculated horror of the reimposition of capital punishment to protect them? What about security guards, public officials or those who run post offices in remote areas? Why should their lives be counted on a different scale? The truth is that whenever categorisation is introduced there are inherent illogicalities, and unjustifiable preferences inevitably arise. That was the experience following the Homicide Act 1957. These proposals would introduce into our law random categorisation—categorisation not so much at a whim but based on the attitude struck, first, by a jury and, secondly, by a judge. The Home Secretary referred to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice, which only serve to underline the nature of that random categorisation and the dangers that it would necessarily involve.
The issue of capital punishment is for us to determine; it is not to be passed off to juries or judges. If the House believes that capital punishment should be available for murder, it should pass provision for it into law. It should not seek to hide behind the skirts of juries or judges.

Dr. Blackburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman eloquently raised the question of categorisation of offences. Does he agree that a police officer, prison warder or public servant deserves extra protection because society asks them to do a specific task?

Mr. Campbell: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular view about the value of the responsibilities discharged by prison and police officers. How do they fall

to be distinguished from the categories of other public servants? Why should they be distinguished from those who might find themslves running post offices in rural areas? Categorisation leads to an inevitable need for value judgments and that comes close to a system in which justice is random and not uniform.
Reference has been made to retribution. I understand the motive of retribution. I understand people's horror, alarm, concern and fright that someone close to them has been killed. I also understand the view that it is open to society or the state to exercise retribution. If human life is sacred, the murderer's act is immoral. The act of the state is equally immoral if one substitutes the institution for the individual. Clothing the proceedings with legality makes the taking of life by capital punishment no less immoral than the taking of life that prompted the conviction of the murderer.
Fundamental to the debate—this matter should appeal to all the lawyers in the House—is the risk that capital punishment necessarily entails. I am pleased to observe the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) in his place. He defended Patrick Meehan, and in his autobiography, which was published recently, he writes movingly about the nature of the trial, the burdens that were placed on him, the result of the trial and the ultimate fight to have Patrick Meehan's pardon granted by the Crown. If Patrick Meehan had been convicted in a time of capital punishment, I have no doubt that, given the revulsion at the nature of the crime of which he was wrongly convicted, he would have been hanged. That is but one example. I shall not enter the argument about whether one can stand the loss of one innocent man for the protection of others because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook dealt with it compellingly and comprehensively. The inherent weakness of capital punishment is that miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected.
I return to the question of belief. No hon. Member is entitled to be more highly regarded on this issue than any other. We each have one judgment and one vote. I shall certainly cast my vote against the new clause.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I believe that I have a special and unique experience to share with the House, especially with its newer and younger Members. I believe that I am the only serving Member who has appeared in a capital trial of any kind. I have appeared in nine capital murder trials and defended eight men for capital treason. During those cases, affecting 17 lives, my conduct was a principal determinant of whether my client lived or died. Of all the questions that I asked, the judgments that I made and the views that the jury previously had of me—Scotland is a family, in which people in public life are known by reputation or otherwise—one question may have been enough to sway the jury one way or another.
The first capital trial in which I appeared for the defence was that of Walter Scott Ellis, who, surprisingly, was acquitted of capital murder by nine votes to six. In Scotland we have a jury of 15 and three verdicts. Nine votes were for not proven, and six were for guilty. In another case—that of Smith—he was acquitted by eight votes to seven—eight for not proven and seven for guilty, which is one strand away from execution. I defended Boyle for capital murder on two occasions.
Before I leave the capital murder cases in which I appeared, let me deal with the deterrent question. Having been acquitted unexpectedly, Walter Scott Ellis went on almost immediately to a course of armed robbery of which he was convicted and sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. If I am not mistaken, he is presently serving a further period of 10 years' imprisonment for armed robbery. So he was not deterred.
Boyle was not deterred. for he went on to be convicted of non-capital murder when I was appearing for his co-accused who was acquitted, and he, now released, has not offended again. If we are looking for deterrents, why did the deterrent not deter Manuel, who was convicted of six murders, or Ruth Ellis, or Bentley, or Heath, or Ruxton, or Haig? What was it about them for whom death had no fear?
I have also appeared for scores of others, indeed hundreds, charged with non-capital murder. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to one who was wrongly convicted—Patrick Meehan—and pardoned, not released—and John Preece, who also, after seven years, had his conviction quashed by the High Court in Edinburgh.
There is no question but that both those clients would have been hanged, Meehan certainly. There was resistance to the pardon over seven years despite the fact that those who had committed the murder brazenly confessed to it in detail which could only have been known to them, and that they were in fact named in the special defence of incrimination at the trial.
There is no question but that Meehan and Preece would have been wrongly murdered, and who would have murdered them? I shall deal only with Meehan. Would it have been the police who falsified the identification parade in order to justify his detention? Would it have been the Crown agent who issued a statement saying that with his detention and the death of his co-accused they were not looking for anybody else; in other words, that he was guilty? Would it have been the court which refused his request to he examined under the truth drug by investigating officers? Would it have been the detectives who, when they discovered that they had no evidence but the false identification parade, planted the paper evidence on his deceased co-accused? Would it have been the Solicitor-General who, when prosecuting, with the sanction of the presiding judge, broke so many of the rules of evidence? Would it have been the presiding judge who removed the special defence of incrimination of those who actually did it? Would it have been the appeal court which refused to hear the evidence of all those wrongs? Or would it have been the evidence of the officer in charge of the case, who suppressed the evidence of the presence of the actual culprit, McGuinnes, outside the murder house at the time of the murder, which evidence was found in the locked drawer of his desk when the investigation ordered by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), who had recently been appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, was put in the hands of Detective Chief Superintendent McDougall and Assistant Chief Constable Bell? Between them they would have murdered Meehan.
But I said a moment ago that one of the greatest difficulties of capital murder is that it is the conduct of the defending counsel which is one of the principal determinants of whether his client lives or dies. I have not the slightest doubt that it was my cross-examination of Dr. Alan Clift which resulted in the conviction of John Preece.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The forensic scientist.

Mr. Fairbairn: The forensic scientist—an English forensic scientist.
On the Friday evening he was a feeble, doubting and bad witness, and I took home all the slides of the fibres that he alleged came from the accused's rug and the deceased's coat. On Monday morning, he was a different man. Although on none of the slides that he had identified were to be found the fibres upon which he had based his opinion, he was confident and never ceased to add to every answer—"The fibres may not be there, but I have no doubt at all that that coat and that rug were together." That alone wrongly convicted Preece.

Mr. Mullin: Just like Dr. Skuse.

Mr. Fairbairn: It might be easier in that case to know who to charge with Preece's murder.
So we come to the next appalling question. In the capital treason trials, I as counsel had to ask some men to agree to plead guilty and be sentenced to death in order to save others. Fortunately, for reasons which I need not tell the House, those sentences were not carried out, but they had nothing whatever to do with justice.
Then we come to an even worse characteristic of capital murder, which I believe has never been raised. Of those charged with non-capital murders whom I have defendled I could name straight off 20 or 30 cases in which I would undoubtedly have advised the accused—despite my belief, and correct belief, in their innocence, or in the justice of their defence, be it self-defence or whatever—to plead guilty to culpable homicide because I dared not take the risk that, because of the whims of a jury, they might convict him of capital murder; cases in which I knew that the Crown would happily have accepted a plea of culpable homicide, which, for English Members, is manslaughter. So I would wrongly have condemned 20 to 30 men—I have not counted them all, but I wrote down between 20 and 30 that I could think of in my head—to long periods of imprisonment because I dared not take the risk of advishng them to take the risk of being acquitted or being hanged. That is a much greater extension of the wrong of wrongful execution.
It is important that we should understand the origin of capital punishment and how it came into our criminal system. If I contradict the law of England, I do so in ignorance rather than intentionally. Until there was a police force in this country, the only deterrent to crime—certainly to serious crime—was the deterrent of punishment. At different times in Scotland and England there were between 200 and 300 offences—from the meanest theft to the highest crime—for which one could be sentenced to death. The death sentence was not mandatory, but it was available, which is the basis of the new clause. It was ineffective; it did not work. Once there was a police force, all the categories of crime were removed from the list of between 200 and 300 except for three, for which capital punishment was made mandatory—treason, arson in the royal dockyards, and murder. Those three were excepted because they were the methods by which one could overthrow the constitution of the state.
Once the fleet was built of steel and not of wood, arson in the royal dockyards was forgotten as a category of


crime. Before that, the burning of the fleet would have been a major method of overthrowing the constitution. After the failure of the 1715 and 1745 rebellions, in which the correct and superior claim to the throne of Great Britain by the Jacobite successor was overpowered by force and the Hanoverian successor sat happily on the German posterior of Queen Victoria, treason too became irrelevant. That left the third category of crime, which was kept only because it was the remaining method by which one carried out the overthrow of the state. It was murder.
In the great cases of the romantic Victorian period when people killed their wives to marry their lovers, as Ruxton did this century, the fallacy grew up that the death penalty for murder was an extension, repeat, echo or exercise in the lex talionis—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a death for a death. That was a false deduction; it was never the case.
When the matter came into consideration in 1957, it was obvious that the penalty was illogical. One English case which is rarely mentioned but which seems to me to highlight the illogicality of the death penalty is the A6 murder. There is argument and doubt as to whether Hanratty was correctly or incorrectly convicted. However, there is no question at all but that he was sitting in the back seat of a motor car and that in the front were Gregston, who was driving and his lover, Valerie Storie. There is no doubt at all on the evidence at its height that Hanratty shot Gregston—probably by mistake, when he turned suddenly, and for that he was hanged. After shooting Gregston he drove Valerie Storie round southern England. He forced her out of the motor car on to the verge and raped her at gunpoint. He then emptied the other seven bullets into her body to eliminate her and her evidence. He rendered her a quadriplegic, but he could not be hanged for that. Which of the two crimes in justice would deserve the supreme penalty if it were available?
The penalty is illogical. The man who is a bad shot is not hanged, but the man who is a good shot is. The man who throws a stone into a pub and kills somebody by chance is guilty of murder by recklessness. The man who throws a hand grenade intending to kill everybody in the pub because they are thought to be of some other religion but instead blinds or maims them all lives. There is no justice or logic in a mandatory death penalty.
The new clause is an amendment of chance. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we should look at the chances involved. The outcome does not depend only on the jury. I understand that the Bill would abolish the ability to manipulate one's jury by objection. In Scotland we still have that to some extent because I was persuaded as a Law Officer that to remove it would be to introduce absurd objections on alleged cause shown. Whichever way the matter goes, the 15 members of the jury are there by chance. One fact is never taken into account by those who listen to, or say that they are listening to, the public demand. The public who demand the death penalty are also the public who sit on the jury. When 15 members of the public are sitting on a jury, they do not represent the call of the public for capital punishment. If they did, Ellis, who I first defended on a charge of capital murder, would unquestionably have been hanged, and by a unanimous decision.
We do not just want a free vote. We ought also to come into the Chamber with a free mind. I am not encased by preordained attitudes in this matter—a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. I am open to any argument that persuades me. I have not necessarily always held the same view, but I am persuaded that the death penalty is illogical, irreversible, unfair and unjust. It may have been appropriate at times in the past, but I am persuaded that that is no longer so.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the age of television. We have already seen what happens. The House will remember the events surrounding the execution for cocaine smuggling in Malaysia. There were interviews with the family. The question was asked, "There is an hour to go; what does it feel like as the sister of a condemned man?" In the aftermath of "Spycatcher" and "Tumbledown", it is clear that if one of the two sides would stand to make money from an execution, it would not be the victim's family; it would be the family of the deceased.
There are arguments in favour of those who say that there should be capital punishment. They say that it is a deterrent. It did not deter any of the first three people whom I defended for capital murder, who were very nearly hanged, from going on to commit appalling crimes with weapons.
It is said that the supreme crime demands the supreme penalty. That is a misunderstanding. It is said that the death penalty should be imposed for retribution, which I translate as vengeance. I want to make the next point without emotion but seriously. When I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in a television debate on capital punishment eagerly putting up his hand as the first person who would want to leap up the steps of the scaffold to pull the lever—as volunteer No. 1 at the head of the queue—it seemed to me that he was more interested in the thirst for vengeance than in the justice of an appropriate penalty. It is important that passion and emotion should not play their part. The horror of any appalling crime immediately moves us, if we are human, to want to take revenge, but that is not the purpose of or the justification for the law, or the duty of this House.
7 pm
Those who vote for the new clause will inevitably vote to murder some innocent people. I defended two innocent people who were pardoned. I should not like to have to bear the thought that some act or omission of mine had resulted in their wrongful death. I have endured the agony of many capital trials. I have endured fear with the jury, the witnesses and the police, who are the investigators and prosecutors. I know what capital trials were about for all those involved. That awful event had nothing to do with hot justice and retribution, least of all for the jury.
The new clause would be absurd, but that is not the point. It is said in Scotland, "Oor juries always convict." One would therefore try to make sure that there was a transfer of the trial to Edinburgh, as happened in the Meehan case. We said, "Oor jury is not going to acquit a man who murdered Mrs. Ross from Racecourse road in Ayr." That trial was held in Edinburgh and it would have resulted in an acquittal but for the events in the trial, and before it, that led to a conviction by two votes.
For myself, and speaking only for myself, the power of life and death should, with limited exceptions, rest with


Almighty God and not with us. I do not believe that in any circumstances it is right for us to say that we should take unto ourselves that right, nor do I believe that it is right for us to say that the odd innocent, and hopefully also criminal, man who is murdered by the state is the right price to pay. There is no price to pay for life.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I do not propose to rehearse again the arguments that have already been canvassed at length about whether there should be the death penalty. Those arguments stand. Some people fundamentally believe that there should be the death penalty; other people fundamentally believe that there should not be the death penalty. I intend to deal with the proposed new clause.
I have to declare an interest as a practising lawyer. In my view, this is a thoroughly bad new clause. It brings sentencing into the mind of the jury. It has always been a fundamental principle of our system that the jury should determine matters of fact—whether a man is guilty and, if he is guilty, of which counts of the indictment he is guilty. If he is found guilty, the judge sentences him. The minute that we begin to depart from that principle, we depart from the principle on which jury trial is based.
The new clause seeks to do that. It says that the jury must consider whether a man is guilty of a capital crime. Having decided that question, it then has to consider whether that man should live or die. By asking a jury to take that second step, we are asking them to take a partisan view during the first step, which should be objective: whether, under the English system, the Crown has proved its case. It has always been a fundamental principle of our legal system that the defence has to prove nothing. It is for the Crown to prove its case. By seeking to introduce that aspect, the new clause takes us away from that fundamental principle and makes the jury very much partisan in the cause.
The new clause is also bad because there can be no certainty of uniformity. In theory, the system has always been that, whether one is tried in London or Newcastle, the verdict should always be logical. We know from our experience that juries vary. There is no way in which there can be a guarantee that the same decision will be arrived at in all cases. There has been much talk recently in the newspapers about juries. Certain politicians have already begun to climb on the bandwagon, suggesting that at Snaresbrook it is difficult to convict a burglar. That is not true. It is difficult to convict a handler at Snaresbrook because everybody seems to buy something in a pub. It is said that at Knightsbridge it is difficult to secure a conviction in other sorts of cases. If those problems already exist, how can there be uniformity of decision?
I notice that a few hon. Members are busy chatting about other matters, but I ask those who are in favour of the new clause to think about another simple issue. In future, jurors will not be selected at random, and there will be no right of challenge. The Bill takes away that right of challenge. How can we guarantee that a jury selected in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds will be of the same sort and composition as a jury selected in London, Birmingham or Southampton? Without that certainty, there can be no uniformity of decision on the vital second question that the new clause seeks to ask—the right to live or die.
There will always be those who want to hang, and there will always be those who are violently opposed to capital punishment. I say to those who want a return to hanging

that they should not ask for it to be brought back on the simple premise that is before the House. They should not put before the House a new clause that would lead to uncertainty and, more particularly, that would lead to the destruction of our trial system and to the imposition on a jury of a question that should never be asked. A jury should never be asked to decide the sentence. They are there merely to decide guilt or innocence.

Mr. George Gardiner: I shall vote for the new clause for the same reason as I have voted for every proposed new clause, amendment or Bill that has been introduced since I was first elected in 1974 that had as its purpose the restoration of capital punishment to our judicial system.
I have never been in any doubt that innocent lives would be saved if those who were motivated to murder knew full well that if they took the life of another person they could forfeit their own. All common sense tells us that this must be so. Are the opponents of restoration seriously trying to tell us that no one who sets out to burgle with a gun in his pocket will think twice before using it if the possibility of the death penalty exists? Are they seriously trying to suggest that no man raping a woman at knife point will be deterred from using that knife to obliterate his principal witness? Do they really expect us to believe that no criminal will be deterred from using his gun or knife to kill a policeman to avoid arrest?
But tonight I want to consider a different aspect which should be of concern to all hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Member consider for a second the fact that capital punishment could be an encouragement to further murder if the original murder has been witnessed? What does he say to that point?

Mr. Gardiner: I would not accept that at all. I am speaking of deterrence as regards the original murder.
My principal argument concerns the continuing gulf between decisions that we take on this subject and the view of the clear majority of the people whom we collectively represent. The view of the public on restoration has been remarkably consistent ever since capital punishment was abolished 24 years ago. I cite the evidence of two respectable opinion polls, National Opinion and Gallup, since they have taken a regular interest in this issue over the years in question.
In 1964, before abolition, NOP recorded 67 per cent. wanting to keep the death penalty, but that did not slop Parliament abolishing it. In 1966 it recorded a staggering total of 82 per cent. against abolition, but still Parliament confirmed the experiment in 1968. Abolitionists assured us then that public opinion would in time come round to following this clear lead, but the public never did. Throughout the 1970s the proportion calling for restoration varied between 67 and 82 per cent., yet in 1979 the House still refused to heed that call. Since 1981 Gallup has recorded support for restoration from 64 to 69 per cent. Other opinion polls show even higher figures. Only last year NOP found 73 per cent. calling for restoration, and that was after 23 years' experience of abolition.
The public feel even more strongly on specific categories of murder. In polls conducted between 1981 and 1987, Gallup found the number wanting capital punishment restored for the murder of members of the Army and the police forces varying between 66 and 75 per


cent.; for terrorist murders from 73 to 78 per cent.; and for murders of women following sexual assault from 69 to 72 per cent.
Such figures cannot be dismissed as one-off verdicts following some particularly gruesome outrage; nor can they be dismissed as—to use the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—"an emotional spasm". They represent the consistently expressed demand of the British people over 24 years. Yet that clear demand has been blocked repeatedly in the House.
I have spoken and written on the issue many times and the letters I have received afterwards have always made very sad reading for anyone who has the well-being of Parliament at heart. One comment repeated over and over again is:
It's no use telling our MP—he just won't listen.
Another comment is:
It doesn't matter what we think—Parliament just doesn't want to know. Yet we're the people who are afraid to walk alone or answer our door at night.
Yet another is:
Will Members of Parliament never listen?
Apparently not, for the will of the majority is consistently frustrated in this House.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the only way for the House to know the will of the people would be through a national referendum on capital punishment?

Mr. Gardiner: I have my doubts about a referendum, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). In my view, a referendum would tell us nothing that we do not know already from reputable opinion polls over 24 years. And, as we know, one cannot legislate as a result of a referendum; one can only conduct it in an advisory capacity. So it would tell us nothing more than we know at the moment. The majority view, recorded not in a referendum but in opinion poll after opinion poll, tells us that the vast majority of the population want restoration of the death penalty. Yet they are frustrated by the decisions of the House.
Sir Winston Churchill said:
The will of the majority, in accordance with traditions that have come down to us from earliest times, is the only healthy foundation for the State. The much tried and often proved good sense of the mass of the British people is the only safeguard on which the British Constitution relies. Trust the people.
Why cannot we trust the people in their judgment of what directly affects the safety of their daily lives?

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that Winston Churchill also said that the grass will grow green on the battlefields, but never on the scaffold?

Mr. Gardiner: He did, but I do not think that that detracts in the least from the quotation that I have just made.
We are told that this vote is a matter of conscience.

Mr. James Couchman: rose——

Mr. Gardiner: No, I will not give way any more; I am sorry.
I accept that there are obviously some very deep religious convictions involved. Far be it from me to question the conscience of any hon. Member, but there is a danger that we all face of using conscience as an easy escape route to avoid taking a difficult decision. Surely our exercise of conscience must take cognisance of and embrace the clearly expressed wishes of the vast majority of those whom we represent.
Edmund Burke is frequently quoted to us saying that we cast our votes here as representatives, not as delegates, which is fair enough. But Burke also said:
In all disputes between [the people] and their rulers, the presumption is at least on a par in favour of the people.
That was in 1771. Again, he said:
The people are the masters.
That was in 1780. Let us not forget that they are our masters still. Our duty must be to heed their voice.
We are told that in the Division we shall lose. If that is the case, so be it. But this issue will come back to the House again and again so long as the people's wish is frustrated. Parliament cannot go on obstructing this consistent demand from the majority of people. The day must come when we cease to obstruct that judgment. I wish that that day were now.

Mr. Mallon: I acknowledge the powerful and impressive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). He brought us face to face not only with the legality but with the humanity of the matter. It is right that, on the strength of such a remarkable speech, we should welcome him to the House.
It is a disturbing irony that we have had two almost simultaneous debates touching on the most central right of the individual—the right to live—and the right of society to state how individual rights will be decided. I refer of course to what is now known as the Alton Bill and this new clause. They have much in common. They are about the same thing—the sacredness of life and an individual's right to live out his God-given life until it ends in the way that it is supposed to end by that who gave him his life, and not by the abortionist's scalpel or the hangman's noose. I approach the debate from a pro-life and right-to-life point of view.
It is a fundamental contradiction that, one week, people can be pro-life in terms of abortion and, the following week, be anti-life in terms of capital punishment. I cannot see consistency, logic, or the type of humanitarian approach that must be brought to both debates if they are ever to reach the fruition that I hope to see.
There is danger in both debates. In effect, self-righteous indignation about both issues becomes self-righteous indulgence. Every year we trot out the sacred cow, give it its yearly outing, debate the issue, and then put it back out to pasture. That is bad for both issues. It diminishes the interest and the attitudes that we bring to the issues and the passion with which we should deal with them. We should debate this matter with passion, because we are dealing with the most fundamental principle—the sacredness of human life and whether it should be taken. Hon. Members should have no doubt that that is what we are discussing, and that is what we discussed in the abortion debate. We cannot allow the matter to become ritualistic.
Winston Churchill was quoted earlier in the debate. He made another point that is relevant to all of us, and we should remind ourselves of it when we debate issues with a high moral content. Of some of his friends, Winston Churchill said that they carried their rectitude like a


banner and stopped every now and again to salute it. Let us not do that with such fundamental issues as the unborn child's right to live and the adult person's right not to have his life terminated by the hangman's noose. I must bring that fundamental approach to the debate.
The Howard League for Penal Reform stated:
A judicially sanctioned execution is an inherently immoral action. It is a barbaric, brutalising and degrading form of punishment which is contrary to respect and value for human life.
From that point of view, I have a closed mind. My mind was closed before I came to the debate. I shall vote against the new clause, because it involves the taking of a human being's life for reasons that simply cannot be justified.
We are considering one of the most convoluted ironies that one could imagine. It has been implied and stated through the media by some proponents and supporters that new clause I would not apply to the north of Ireland. If it were so, we should have the most ridiculous situation in which a clause relating to capital punishment would not apply to that country under the Government's jurisdiction which, by comparison, had a remarkably high murder rate. That would make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am working on the assumption that the supporters of the new clause expect it to be applied in Northern Ireland. That might make the situation worse, not better, for the argument, but I should like the matter to be cleared up.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Whether or not it applies to the north of Ireland, it is nonsense. We are constantly told by no less a person than the Prime Minister that the north of Ireland is as British as Finchley. If we are so British, then all the legislation that is passed by the House should apply to us. Yet this legislation simply cannot apply unless one thing is done, and that is to reintroduce jury trials. What a black comedy it would be if we were to reintroduce the jury system so that juries could recommend that people be killed. That is the type of black comedy that we would face with the new clause if it were to apply to the north of Ireland.
The ultimate protection for an accused person is his peers, and his peers are the jury. We do not have juries in the north of Ireland. To pass this legislation would be bizarre, contradictory, and macabre. We would be laughed at and scorned by every civilised country of the world.
Many eminent and able lawyers in the House will deal more effectively than I shall with the legalities of the legislation, but one point must be made as forcefully as possible. New clause 15 refers to
particular premeditation, brutality or callousness".
I wonder how that will be determined. I wonder what it will mean to a jury who are charged with giving an opinion and a judge who is charged with making a decision. Will it be "quite callous and premeditated", "slightly callous and premeditated", "very callous and premeditated", or "extremely callous and premeditated"? At which point will an offence become a hanging offence? That is the difficulty that we face, and that is the tragedy that we shall bring to the country if the new clause is passed.
If the new clause means "very" or "extremely", rather than "slightly" or "quite", we shall get vengeance from society. If the wording is "quite" or "slightly", we shall get punishment from society. The aim of the law is not to do

either; it is to achieve the maximum protection for society. If we seek vengeance, we shall not deal with justice. Vengeance is for the terrorist, the maniacal killer and for the person who has no respect for the law. Vengeance should never be part of what we treasure as a proper system of justice. Over the centuries, the march of justice has been to overcome private vengeance. To leave our judicial and legal system in search of vengeance would be a disservice not only to this generation but to future generations.
The Secretary of State stated that if the new clause were passed there would be media hype, media trials, and show trials, and he said also that, in a dramatic way, they would become the focus of attention. He looked at the matter from one point of view, but I specify another point of view. If the new clause is passed and we have hanging juries and hanging judges, can hon. Members imagine the type of media hype that will occur not when it is over but before and during a trial? I have seen it recently with terrorist trials. I venture to suggest that it is almost impossible for a person to be given a fair trial, with helicopters on the roofs, snipers all around and the media carrying pictures of the scenes of the crime in which he is supposed to have been involved, before the trial has even begun. That will be multiplied 10 or 20 times, until the law and the whole trial process become part of a substantial media hype which can only do it a remarkable disservice. Let us not forget that jurors are simply people. They read newspapers, watch television, listen to rumours and talk to their neighbours, and they would be substantially influenced by such a hype.
7.30 pm
It would he remiss of me, coming as I do from the north of Ireland, not to refer to the violence, terrorism and paramilitary activity there. I say with no fear of contradiction—because I come from a tradition in Ireland that knows it off by heart, has learned it the hard way and is still paying the price—that the most potent aspect of Irish political life is its martyrs.
We should remember the famous words of Padraig Pearse at the grave of O'Donnovan Rossa. Speaking of the British Government, he said:
The fools, the fools. They have left us our Fenian dead".
How right he was. Nothing is so potent in Irish political life as the martyr's gravestone; nothing is so tuned to the bugle in the blood, whether it be Protestant or Catholic blood, as that feeling of martyrdom for a cause. That is the motivation, the tremendous driving force, that has kept this series of troubles going for four times as long as the second world war. And I am told that the death penalty will be a deterrent in the face of that motivation. It is not, and it never will be.
I ask the House again, as I asked in the last debate on this topic, never again to let this type of legislation apply in this country. It does nothing for Parliament or the people that it serves, and it will do a grave disservice to the whole process of justice.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In Northern Ireland there are killings weekly and sometimes daily, and every public representative must search his own heart and conscience on this issue, and those elected to public office must at all times be careful to recognise the position that they hold.
On Sunday afternoon, I was as at a home in Castlederg. There was a widow woman there. She had one son, who had been shot through the back of the head by the IRA.


The reason for his killing was his religion. He was a Protestant, and wore Her Majesty's uniform as a member of the UDR.
As has been mentioned, there have been some 17 murders in that area, for which no one has been amenable in the courts. We heard from the Home Secretary about Enniskillen, but he did not tell us that no one has been made amenable for that terrible massacre. In Kilkeel, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)——

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Member's geography is wrong.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I always thought that it was part of Newry and Armagh, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong. As he knows, we have experienced a great change of boundaries in the past.
In Kilkeel, a former UDR member had a mercury tilt bomb put under his van. Fortunately, only the detonator exploded, or there would have been three other victims. Visiting such homes, one is faced with the realities of murder. At another home that I visited on Sunday, I was shown a picture of a wedding that had taken place just a few years ago. The mother said, "Only one member of the bridal party is still living—the bride." The groom and the best man, who were members of the UDR, were murdered, as was the bridesmaid, who belonged to the Greenfinch part of the UDR.
When faced with such events, it is necessary to search one's heart and to realise that those people's convictions have a granite rock on which to rest. I do not believe that gut reaction is the foundation on which our convictions should rest, although there is nothing wrong with gut reaction in the immediate wake of such atrocities. It was Bishop Butler, the famous philosopher, who said:
The indignation raised by cruelty and injustice, and the desire of having it punished, which persons unconcerned would feel, is by no means malice. No, it is resentment against vice and wickedness: it is one of the common bonds, by which society is held together; a fellow-feeling, which each individual has in behalf of the whole species, as well as of himself.
Perhaps that is a good illustration of gut reaction, but I must have something far more solid on which to rest my convictions.
I was deeply impressed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). In that speech, which was made as a sort of confession of his relationship with trials in which he had taken part, he said that the power of life and death was in the hands of the Almighty. That is absolutely correct, but he should have gone on to develop the theme.
Capital punishment is in the hands of God, but God has delegated to mankind certain responsibilities and duties. Although we may not like those responsibilities or may resent those duties, we cannot get away from them. I have listened to some strange statements here today. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—the Scottish Liberal—said that the state had not the right to take life. Let us analyse that statement: it means that the state has no right to declare war. Where would we find ourselves if we followed the logic of that?
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that every man and woman in this country should have the right to be saved from the hangman's noose. They have that right, if they keep their hands out of crime. Every man

has a right to keep out of prison if he does not violate the law—I have some practical experience of that. We all have our rights. Let us not be carried away with this wonderful theme of saving men from the hangman's noose. Everyone can be saved if he stays in line with the law. [Interruption.] I do not believe that every court in the land, every police officer, every judge and every jury is crooked. If that were so, we should wipe out the House because it would have no authority. I apologise for raising the temper of some hon. Members.
I believe with all my heart that capital punishment is a divinely revealed law that rests on the rock granite of biblical revelation. It rests on the very principle that some hon. Members have used to try to turn for their benefit. It rests on the sacredness of life. It is because life is not cheap and because life is sacred that divinely revealed scripture tells us that those who have responsibility in government should exercise the power of the sword.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) may turn round to smile at his friends but he talked about that authority which deals with capital punishment. I too want to deal with that authority. The word of God tells us, way back before the Mosaic epoch:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
The sacredness of life demanded that if a man took life, he should forfeit his. That is why life is so valuable and sacred.
We come then to the Mosaic law where we have the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". I have heard abolitionists say in the House and in other places that that supports their case, but anyone who has studied the Mosaic law will have seen that the scriptures advocate that certain crimes should have capital punishment. That scripture is dealing with a person who goes out to commit the crime of murder. Some hon. Members may say that that is the Old Testament and that we should forget about it, but the Bible is one book and the Old Testament has within it the genius and grace of the New Testament.
I turn to the greatest authority of all, the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. If ever any person set up the greatest of all deterrents, it was the incarnate Son of God when he walked this earth. He said that all that a man hath, he will give for his life. There we have the great deterrent from the one who spake as never man spake.
I have been in and out of prison and have talked to prisoners, and I know that all that a man has, he will give for his life. But Christ went on to point out that those who take the sword must be punished by the sword. I remember hearing in the House an hon. Member say that no man could be a Christian and not believe in the abolition of capital punishment. I asked that Member, "Do you believe that Paul was a Christian?" He said that of course Paul was a Christian. What did Paul say? He said:
if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die".
Let us remember that Paul wrote most of the New Testament under the inspiration of God. So let us get the facts right as they are revealed in scripture.
The very genius of the Gospel is the genius that lies at the heart of this, because the genius of the Gospel is a cross and a death. If Christ had not died we could not live, for we all deserve death:


The wages of sin is death
and
The soul that sinneth, it shall die".
That is at the very heart of the Christian message; someone else took my place and died for me.
I now come to the reality of the position as we have it in Northern Ireland today. When I first came to the House there was a debate on capital punishment. The IRA threatened to get everyone who voted against abolition. One man was got—the Rev. Robert Bradford, my near and dear friend. Two other Members of the House have been murdered by the IRA—the former Member for Southgate, Sir Anthony Berry, in the Brighton explosion, and Mr. Airey Neave, who was the Member for Abingdon.
7.45 pm
We were told by the IRA that if we dared show our hand in the House against abolition we would be on the line. What else were we told? We were told that for every person who was hanged, two would be shot dead. I do not bow to terrorist judgment. I have walked too long with death in Northern Ireland, as has every public representative; no matter what side of the fence he comes from, every public representative is in danger. Every public representative walks with death every day. I say to the IRA, "You will not dictate to the representatives of Northern Ireland how we cast our votes in this House." If it means death, so be it, because principle and liberty are more dear to me than life lived under the threat of the scum of the Irish Republican Army.
I resent deeply on behalf of Northern Ireland what was said by the Home Secretary today. He said that he had consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He said that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary had told him that his senior officers did not want capital punishment. Has ever a Chief Constable in Northern Ireland been attacked? Has ever an assistant chief constable been attacked? There is a trade union for police officers in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that that would appeal to the Opposition Benches. Why was the Police Federation never invited to give its views? Its members are the men who stand on the street. We heard today that a policeman is no different from a post office attendant. Policemen in Northern Ireland put themselves in the front line. Why were members of the UDR not consulted to find out their view? When they put on their uniform, they put themselves on the line. Those people are a special category.

Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that the Police Federation has expressed an opinion which is totally contrary to that of the Chief Constable? The Police Federation has requested humbly that the House should give policemen the protection of capital punishment. That is the reality. Will my hon. Friend also tell the House that in Northern Ireland capital punishment is taking place? The killing of the innocent is happening. It is time that many hon. Members were more concerned about the innocent than the terrorists and the guilty.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I feel very sore that Opposition Members should think that that is something to smile about. I have been in too many police homes not to realise reality. We live with it day after day. We are not taking part in an academic exercise. We are walking and talking with these people every day. The clear teaching upon which the Government rest is their authority to use the

power of the sword. Government is a divinely ordained institution. The chief magistrate has responsibility under God and we, as part of this Parliament. have responsibilities to discharge. There is no way that we can escape from that.
The power of the sword is in the hands of the chief magistrate to punish the guilty and to defend the innocent. Well, the innocent in Northern Ireland are not being defended today. I heard a graphic and gruesome description of hanging by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I can tell the House of murders that will make everybody here sick. Hon. Members have seen on their televisions something of what we have had day after day. However, they did not see half of it, because the eyes of one of those corporals were gouged out by a knife in the hand of one of the IRA killers. That kind of action calls for the Government to do something to defend the ordinary people of Northern Ireland and to give them a chance to exist and to live. Any Government who fail to exercise the power of the sword fail in their bounden duty and responsibility. Those are the things that concern us in Northern Ireland.
I believe in jury trials. I do not believe that the juries should have been done away with. I voted against it in Committee with some of the hon. Friends of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, because it was not juries which were being threatened at that time; it was witnesses. I want to see jury trials. I believe that we must have jury trials if we are to have capital punishment. However, I will vote for the new clause because I believe that it is putting up a marker. It recognises that in our constituencies there are people who are saying, "We should have a return to capital punishment." Some hon. Members might close their ears to that, but that tide will rise and, as crime continues in that part of the United Kingdom, and as the IRA and terrorism worldwide tightens its grip on freedom-loving people, those Members will realise what we are really up against. They will have to come to grips with the fact that there is only one real deterrent, and that is to deal with the people who commit those crimes.
I finish with the words spoken in this House by my late, beloved friend, Robert Bradford, who said:
The issue is not whether capital punishment is a deterrent. The fact that both sides resort to statistics to prove their point means that the exercise is futile because it is inconclusive. The one thing that is certain is that capital punishment deters the terrorist, who is removed from society by capital punishment.
When capital punishment is applied, there is commensurate punishment with the crime and at least one terrorist has been deterred. It does the Northern Ireland people a grave injustice to suggest that the murder of educationally sub-normal boys and girls and the murder of a two-year-old girl will result in a kind of secular canonisation of IRA terrorists.
That is what we have been hearing today: "If we deal with terrorism, there will be murders." There will be some sort of secular canonisation. Do hon. Members really think that the right thinking, decent Roman Catholic and Protestant people in Northern Ireland will give these murderous thugs some sort of secular canonisatlion because they meet their just deserts?
I conclude with the words of my late lamented friend, who said:
I conclude by saying that we must all be realistic. Hostages will be taken, counter-murders will occur"—
and they are occurring—


but unfortunately hostage and murder are ironies of our fate. One thing is clear: terrorism will win if we compromise our attitude in respect of the punishment applied."—[Official Report, 11 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 709–10.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: I want to return to the main theme of the debate which is concerned with criminal law and the use of capital punishment for orthodox crime.
Of course, for many of us, the arguments about whether capital punishment is effective are independent. The argument about whether capital punishment deters is not the key issue. The key issue is how we feel about capital punishment. Whether the number of murders would be lowered is not the central issue. Every society has to decide which punishments, even if effective, are beyond the pale. Therefore, we deliberately reject some punishments, even when we know that they work. We reject the amputation of limbs, although we know that that would lead to fewer thefts. We reject some forms of drug therapy and brain surgery even when we know that they would lead to less horrific crimes. Many of us would also reject the idea of judicial execution even if the number of murders could be lowered by that route. However, there is no evidence that the number of murders would be lowered.
We take the view that judicial executions degrade us. One of the memorable experiences of my life concerns a friend who was a prison officer. He was a member of a team who, through the last stages of a prisoner's life, had to befriend him, make the remaining days of his life as comfortable as possible and then accompany him to the scaffold. Just hearing about that scarred me and I know that it scarred that prison officer. Among the most impressive evidence we have received has been that from prison governors who have said that they would have to reconsider their position in the service if execution was brought back.
We must continually be seeking to reduce the amount of violence. There is no other evidence other than that violence breeds violence. I have no evidence other than that which would show that, if we were to increase the amount of violence by judicial execution, it would be harmful.
There is no evidence that deterrence works in the case of murder. Deterrence is a flawed idea in any case. All around us is evidence of deterrents that do not work. One finds evidence in public house car parks of deterrents that do not work. There is evidence among smokers of deterrents that do not work. On the streets of America all sorts of people carry guns. The legal enforcement agencies carry guns. Instant deterrents are available, but look at the level of crime in that country.
We are constantly told that the certainty of detection is the best deterrence. The detection rate for murder is 97 per cent, yet that does not deter murder. Murder is a special crime about which the arguments for deterrents are even less effective than they are usually. We have heard several times that 75 per cent. of murders are among people who know each other—often very well. They are committed by people who are trapped in a unique situation—a once-in-a-lifetime situation of an emotional charnel house—that causes them to take this particular action. It cannot be those people that we are talking about today.
There is also a small minority of very disturbed people who will certainly not be deterred by the death penalty or anything else.
We must get away from the tempting idea that has been suggested in this debate that anything can be put right by judicial execution. Murder is a loss that cannot be restored. No matter how much we want to restore it, nothing can. Judicial execution would not put matters right.
New clause 1 is a cop-out and a fudge. It is put forward by people who basically want to reintroduce the death penalty but who know that a blanket provision for all murders is unthinkable and unsustainable in the House. They also know that choosing murders by category—for example, by the method or by the kind of victim—was completely discredited when it was used in the past. They have therefore gone for the idea of leaving it to the jury to choose who to recommend for the death sentence. That is a half-baked idea for reasons that have been mentioned. First, no one should add to the pressures on a jury in a murder trial. Imagine the pressures on those who oppose capital punishment when serving on a jury if they knew the consequences of a conviction.
The issue of whether majority recommendations would be allowed has not been adequately dealt with. It is difficult to imagine unanimous recommendations. We know the sense of relief that juries in ordinary criminal cases feel when, having found someone guilty, they then find out that that person has previous convictions Even if wrongly, they then have a sense of guilt lifted from them. If jurors had to recommend that someone should be executed, that sense of guilt would be much greater.
8 pm
It has already been stated eloquently this evening that, compared with when the death penalty existed, we now have a much seamier media in this country which would exploit such trails for the basest of reasons, such as increasing the sale of newspapers or the number of television viewers.
A second difficulty about leaving the decision to juries and about the new clause is that all the prejudices of the jurors would come out when making death penalty recommendations. From experience and from elsewhere, we know that it is much more likely that women would be sentenced to death. We know that unpopular minority groups—on the basis of sex, sexual behaviour or sexual orientation—would be much more likely to be recommended for the death sentence.
Many people will remember the Jeremy Bamber case. Five members of the same family were killed by Jeremy Bamber. Colin Caffell, Bamber's brother-in-law, has written to me. He is the ex-husband of Sheila Caffell and the father of the children who were appallingly killed by Bamber. Mr. Caffell wrote to me on this issue, and to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), stating:
Had there been the death sentence, I suspect that Jeremy Bamber, who murdered my ex-wife and children, might have got off because people can't understand how 'a nice looking boy like him' could do something like that. Even though we can see, from the evidence, how dangerous he is, Jeremy doesn't fit the archetype image of a desperate killer. He is a good-looking and charismatic character with charm, a good education and everything to live for; a man who could, and almost did, sway the hearts of the jury; a man who could easily kill again!
All the evidence, especially from America, shows that if there is the death penalty for categories of murder, it is the


people from the poorest sections of society who are most likely to be singled out for that recommendation. I thought that this would be a controversial point, but after what the lawyers have said today, it is not. We like to think that the law and juries are perfectly objective. However, we have heard some stunning evidence today about the lack of objectivity.
The third major difficulty about letting juries recommend the death penalty is that those who propose the new clause have seen that a tiny category of murders are so appalling and distressing that juries and courts will easily recognise them and recommend the death penalty. It must be realised that it is for precisely that category of murder that guilty verdicts are most unsafe. Timothy Evans would have been such a murderer. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) reminded us once again about Paddy Meehan. He would have been the kind of murderer who would have been recommended for the death penalty, having killed an elderly couple. David Blythe in Manchester, who was held for murdering two elderly women, would have been such a murderer. The Birmingham pub bombers and the Guildford bombers would have been such murderers. The Broadwater Farm murder was such a case.
I do not know enough about the latter three cases to pronounce on whether the people concerned were guilty or innocent, but. I do know that there are grave doubts in each and every one of those cases about whether those people were guilty or innocent. Those were horrifying murders of the kind that engender intense emotion; when the pressures on the police to find the guilty are intense; when there are pressures to short-cut and where the evidence is much more likely to be circumstantial and flimsy rather than conclusive. Such murders might attract death penalty recommendations from juries, but it is in precisely such cases that the verdicts are least safe. At least those involved in those currently troubling cases are still in prison and alive. Under the new clause, they would not be.

Mr. Charles Irving: Still vivid in my memory is the ordeal that I went through about 50 years ago as one of the pickets on the gates of Gloucester prison at the last hanging. I have never got over it. In all the years since, I have done my tiny bit to help to improve the appalling situation that existed in those days.
The deliberate taking of another person's life in cold blood is an uncivilised act under any circumstances. To carry it out accompanied by the solemn ceremony of the state apparatus is totally obscene. I feel passionately, therefore, that it would be utterly wrong to reintroduce the death penalty without the most conclusive evidence that it acts as a unique deterrent. That evidence does not exist. In fact, throughout the world, the evidence shows that the death penalty does not reduce the murder rate, but leads simply to a greater coarsening of attitudes to human life.
The arguments against capital punishment are well known to the House. So strong are they that they persuaded Parliament in 1965 to abolish the death penalty. So strong are they—[Interruption.] I thought that I heard somebody whispering or mumbling, but apparently not. So strong are they that they have persuaded Parliament time and time again not to reverse that momentous decision.
With the indulgence of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I enumerate the compelling reasons why

capital punishment was wrong, is wrong, and will ever be wrong—[Interruption.] It is off again—there is something in the background. [Laughter.]
First, capital punishment is not a deterrent. The Royal Commission of 1965——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Irving: No, I never give way and if you were the only girl in the world and I was the only boy, I would not give way to you.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his position perfectly clear.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is not a gentleman if he does not give way.

Mr. Irving: First, capital punishment is not a deterrent. The Royal Commission of 1965 said that there was no evidence to prove it. Recent surveys in the United States of America, where some states have the death penalty and some have not, show exactly the same.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They always appeal.

Mr. Irving: I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. to ask the hon. Lady to stop interrupting.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is reasonable to ask the hon. Lady not to continue interrupting from a sedentary position, as she has done most of the afternoon.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have sought to intervene from a standing position but the hon. Gentlemen did not give way, so it is scarcely my fault if I interrupt from a sedentary position.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If one is not allowed to intervene from a standing position in this House, it is usual for hon. Members to restrict their comments until the Chair calls them.

Mr. Irving: Some states have the death penalty and some have not, but they all say exactly the same: where a killing is done in the heat of the moment, whether by a jealous husband or a thwarted mistress, the threat of execution seems to hold no terror.
Secondly, supporters of capital punishment do not call for it in every case. Surely that is a powerful admission by them that it is not necessarily a deterrent. Thirdly, we cannot restore life to a man wrongly convicted and executed. Alas, there have been in living memory the most appalling miscarriages of justice in a land which prides itself on its rule of law and whose legal system has been the object of worldwide admiration. Fourthly, hanging a terrorist would create a martyr and cause, not deter, more outrages. If capital punishment has the opposite effect, every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of both political parties would have come to this House to seek those powers, but we are told, and I accept, that it would create martyrs whose deaths would inspire a hundred fearful imitations.
I confess to feeling greater hostility to the terms of this new clause than I have felt towards any of its predecessors, and I have spoken in every debate on this subject since I have been a Member of this House. The new clause proposes to place on the shoulders of the jury the burden of deciding whether a killing is sufficiently evil to recommend the death penalty. That proposal is unprecedented in our legal history. For the first time, it places upon the jury, not the judge, the function of influencing the sentence of the accused. Further, by its very definition, it puts on the jury the burden of deciding fine matters of motive and morality.
If a husband poisons his wife because she is dying of an incurable illness and he wishes to put her out of her pain. a jury in one place may find that evil and recommend the death penalty, whereas a jury in another area may not find it so. The provision would be wrong, unworkable and intolerable if it became law. Will the House insist in such a case, where the sanction is so terrible and final, that a jury must return a unanimous verdict? To do less would be to undermine the awesome nature of the punishment, and if the verdict must be unanimous it would require only one juror who is opposed to capital punishment in conscience to refuse to convict. The trial would then be stopped and the jury discharged. In those circumstances, would it be right for that man again to stand trial and again to fear for his life? That is not civilisation.
We do not gouge out the eye of the person guilty of theft, we do not break the bones of the one convicted of battering, and we do not yet burn the house of an arsonist. While it is evil for an individual to take a life—I wholly agree with some of the comments and the cases that have been mentioned—it is equally evil and reprehensible for a civilised state to respond in the same way.
8.15 pm
In any discussion on capital punishment, certain matters must be taken for granted by abolitionists and non-abolitionists: that the whole apparatus of the death cell and the executioner is disgustingly squalid, repugnant to decent feeling and offensive to most; that capital punishment inflicts intolerable mental agony on the condemned man and particularly on his family; that it imposes a sordid responsibility on the prison staff, so consequently may well keep many people from joining the service if it were reinstituted; and that it creates a mystique around murder which the press grossly and irresponsibly exploit.
If we pass the new clause, the bell will toll for this country and for the values which it should represent. The bell which tolls will be the death knell for a national reputation based on the solid foundations of civilisation and humanity.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Many moral issues cause right hon. and hon. Members on both sides great difficulty. I confess that I found the abortion issue particularly painful and had to reach a particularly painful decision about which way to cast my vote. Often we have great difficulty in deciding how to cast our votes. It is a great responsibility. We take these issues seriously and we work hard on them.
I have never found any of those difficulties attached to my decision on capital punishment. We can all find good

reasons for opposing the reintroduction of the death penalty. We have heard many of the arguments rehearsed during this debate and doubtless they have been rehearsed on numerous occasions in this House over the years.
There is the powerful argument that there could be a miscarriage of justice and an innocent man or woman would be sentenced to death. As hon. Members have eloquently said, while the system of justice remains fallible, and at present there are no grounds to believe that it is not, the danger will always be there. There are many well-documented cases, both when capital punishment was an option available to the courts and since then, where innocent people have been sentenced and condemned to death, and then under the old system pardoned or since capital punishment has not been an option pardoned and released. That is an extremely powerful and compelling argument.
It is also been argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Many well-argued reports and research documents have been published and many conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the presence and liberal use of the death penalty deters capital offences. Evidence from the United States shows that it is impossible to differentiate between homicide rates in those states that have capital punishment and those that have not. The Home Secretary has already said that the rise in the number of homicides committed in Britain is substantially lower than the rise in other violent offences.
There is a great danger that the use of the death penalty would be arbitrary and unfair. We all know how difficult it was to differentiate between the types of murders that qualified for the death penalty under the Homicide Act 1957 and those that did not.
The danger that lies behind the new clause is the public clamour for the use of the ultimate sanction. If the new clause were accepted that clamour would concentrate on certain well-publicised cases. The danger is that certain sections of the press would decide before a case was heard which defendant might merit the jury's recommendation for the death sentence. The pressure would build up day after day. Members of the jury, probably trying a case for the first time, would not be qualified to make a judgment. They would be under immense outside pressure to make a decision or a recommendation. I believe that those pressures would be intolerable and it would be most unfair to subject a jury to them.
Another argument that has been canvassed today is the fact that the act of execution is both cruel and inhumane. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that he did not support hanging and that other methods of capital punishment should be considered. We all know that there is no humane way in which to kill a human being.
All the arguments that I have outlined could be used against the restoration of capital punishment, but the most powerful, compelling and profound argument that could be deployed against its restoration is the moral argument. The taking of a life, even when it is sanctioned by the state, is a barbaric act. I believe that it is also an inherently immoral action. Such an act is based on the principle of revenge. We should base our sentencing provisions on the normal principles of justice and leave behind the feelings of private vengeance. That is why this is, above all else, a matter of conscience and why I shall vote against new clause 1.

Mr. Lawrence: There has been much disagreement in the House tonight, but I believe that we all share certain views. We all share the belief that the level of mindless violence in our society is far too high. We are appalled at the level of murders, maimings, terrorist acts, rapes, muggings and hooliganism. We all share a desire to take whatever steps we can reasonably take to reduce that violence. We would all share a desire to avoid capital punishment as it is horrible to contemplate the cold-blooded taking of human life and we seek any alternative punishment that would achieve a reduction in violent crime. Unfortunately, for 23 years we have tried the only logical alternative and it has manifestly failed as violence has continued to rise.
We must all agree that the overwhelming majority of people whom we represent believe that the one necessary and reasonable step that we should take to reduce murders, maimings, perhaps to reduce rapes and muggings or any other form of violence—the use of lethal guns, knives or other hideous weapons—is the restoration of capital punishment for murder. I am sure that all hon. Members agree with what I have said, but perhaps some would not agree that we have exhausted all the alternatives.
There are a number of matters, however, on which we do not all agree. Some hon. Members would never, under any circumstances, feel justified in taking human life. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has said that such an act is uncivilised. It is in an uncivilised society, however, that civilised punishment fails to deter. We shall not enjoy the luxury of a civilised society until we reduce the level of murders, maimings, rapes and serious violence.
Some hon. Members are against retribution and that is an honourable view. If we are to have retribution, however, I should prefer state retribution according to the rules legally and properly laid down by it rather than the retribution of private individuals in back alleys. In any event, hon. Members who believe that society would be more civilised if capital punishment was not restored are in a minority in the country.
Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because they believe that if it were applied to terrorists it would result in reprisals and they cannot face that possibility. But if we gave way to such blackmail or fear it would mean that the lawless would be making the laws of our country and we would be betraying the trust of the people who put us here.
Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because mistakes could be made and innocent people might die. That argument rests on the reasoning that it can never be justifiable, under any circumstances, to run the risk of taking innocent lives. If that were the rule by which we lived our lives, would we have gone to war in 1939 or earlier? What do we think about Hiroshima, which resulted in the loss of countless innocent lives? Those lives were lost to save more lives that would have been lost had the war continued.
Should not the saving of innocent lives lead us to ban the most lethal weapon known to man, which daily takes tens or hundreds of lives in our society—the motor car? We should not let the risk of taking innocent lives, which might inevitably follow with capital punishment, stop its reintroduction but we should endeavour to make those mistakes unlikely or impossible. That is our obligation.
We can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past if we make careful rules. After a jury have recommended the death penalty there is no reason why a tribunal should not consider carefully all the surrounding facts concerning the convicted person to see whether there is anything at all that can be said to prevent that person from dying. If that test had been carried out on Timothy Evans, who had a mental age of 12, he would not have died. If Hanratty, who may or may not have been innocent and about whom there is much mythology, had advanced the defence of diminished responsibility he might have succeeded. However, he chose to advance the defence of an alibi which failed.
8.30 pm
Those are the things that could be considered by a tribunal with access to all the background information. If the tribunal found that the killing was so horrible that nothing could be said to justify the saving of the life, so be it, but by that time it would be certain that the man condemned to die would be thoroughly, completely and utterly guilty.
Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because they say that they could not bring themselves to carry it out and would not expect others to do it. There are all kinds of jobs that I could not bring myself to do. I could not inject an animal so that it died; nor could I carry out an abortion. We expect others to do those miserable jobs and it is a cop-out for us to advance that as a reason for not being in favour of capital punishment.
Some hon. Members say that in Northern Ireland capital punishment would create martyrs. Of course it would, but martyrs will be created even if there is no capital punishment in Northern Ireland. The difference is that instead of martyrdom being continuous it would be anniversarial, and people tend to forget the names of the people whose funerals they were celebrating one, two or three years before. It is an insult to the Irish people north or south to advance the argument that the restoration of capital punishment would make martyrs.
Some hon. Members will be convinced by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about new clause 1: that it is a non-starter because it is imprecise about the powers of juries and impractical because it does not sit easily with the Criminal Justice Bill, which I remind my right hon. Friend is not yet on the statute book. My right hon. Friend said that it would be too difficult to have it in Northern Ireland where there are no juries. He said that it is contrary to the wishes of the Chief Constable of the RUC and other important people and that anyway murder represents only one hundreth of 1 per cent. of crime and one tenth of 1 per cent. of violent crimes. Does that mean that we should not entertain such a new clause but should shrug our shoulders and walk away? The new clause could be further amended in another place once the principle of restoration is established. If we do not like the way in which it is amended we can vote for the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) which is much simpler and does not raise those objections.

Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the speech by the Home Secretary and to various aspects of what can be done in the Lords. He said that this is just a matter of principle. The Lord Chief Justice has offered


his view on it. As a recorder, what does the hon. and learned Gentleman think about the views of the Lord Chief Justice?

Mr. Lawrence: As I understand it, the Lord Chief Justice did not express his view about whether there should be a restoration of capital punishment. The view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as being the view of the Lord Chief Justice was that in its present state the new clause would not work. I am saying that it can be further amended in the Lords and if hon. Members do not agree with that and are worried about it they can vote for the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. It is much simpler and I do not think that the learned Lord Chief Justice has been asked to apply his mind to it. At any rate, we were not told that he had.

Mr. Tim Devlin: When one boils the question down, does one not see that the principle of capital punishment comes to the simple question of one's individual conscience? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that every man's conscience, whether it be the Lord Chief Justice or Joe Soap in the street, is equal on this issue? If that is right, surely the House should reflect the views and the consciences of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for the obvious support from my hon. Friend. I did not know until this evening that he was likely to support us. We look forward to hearing why he has changed his views.
Some hon. Members may be against capital punishment because lawyers, judges, prison officers and witnesses might be intimidated and unwilling to do their duty and would want to resign or to reconsider their positions. What on earth did lawyers, judges, prison officers and witnesses do before capital punishment was abolished? Are any of us to be afraid of doing that which is right or necessary in order to save the lives of the innocent? Is that not a slur upon the sense of duty of those who make up the legal system?
In the United States of America where capital punishment is constitutional it has been restored in many states and I have not heard that the system is breaking down in those states because of lawyers, judges and witnesses being unwilling to do their job. Why should the system break down in Britain?
For one or some or all of the reasons that I have advanced, some hon. Members are opposed to the new clause. I remind them that in opposing it they represent a minority of the people of Britain.
The arguments for and against must turn on whether capital punishment is a deterrent. If it is a deterrent it will save lives. It will stop the convicted killer or the potential killer from taking innocent lives, the lives of people who have a right to live. If it is a deterrent, to oppose its reintroduction is to prefer the life of the convicted killer to the lives of innocent people. It is to pity the killer rather than the victim or the potential victim. To do that would be unjust, immoral and thoroughly indefensible. I am getting a bit tired of being called bloodthirsty because I support the restoration of capital punishment. If it is a deterrent it will save lives and not to restore it would be more bloodthirsty and far less defensible.
Those opposed to capital punishment say that it does not deter because there is no evidence to that effect, but there is some evidence. Professor Erlich of Chicago has produced evidence to show that between 1933 and 1969 there was a distinct deterrent effect in the United States and that each execution may have resulted in several fewer murders. A professor of Yale has concluded that between 1939 and 1968 capital punishment was a deterrent in Britain. There is evidence throughout the world that the murder trend has risen more slowly in countries where there is capital punishment.
Let me accept that the evidence is equivocal. If it is, it is because there is no way of registering statistically and convincingly the number of times that a murder was avoided because of the fear of capital punishment. We have to look elsewhere than the statistics., for evidence about whether it is a deterrent.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) made an interesting speech and gave examples of people who were not deterred. There will always be those who are not deterred, just as there will always be the poor.
I do not say that everyone will be deterred by capital punishment, but some will be deterred and that will save many innocent lives. Why do I believe that? First, it is common sense that in many cases the consequences of being caught with one's wrongdoing must have a deterrent effect on what one does. If not, why do we have punishment at all? Why do we have sentences of any kind unless we feel that a substantial justification for them would be deterrence?
Secondly, I believe that lives would be saved; the British people overwhelmingly believe that it would deter. The judgment of ordinary people about the motivation of ordinary people must be more compelling than the judgment of experts. We do not need experts to tell us how ordinary people would react to situations that sometimes end in murder.
Thirdly, another stratum of our society believes that capital punishment is a deterrent. I am referring to the IRA. Why else does it use capital punishment to bring its people into line unless it believes that capital punishment deters terrorists? Why else was the House threatened by the leader of the IRA some years ago, when we debated capital punishment, that if we reintroduced capital punishment there would be greater reprisals against British soldiers in Northern Ireland? If the IRA believes it, why should we disbelieve it?
I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent because in the 1960s I defended some really serious criminals in a number of serious criminal cases. I used to ask them, "Is capital punishment a deterrent? Did it ever deter you? Would it deter others like you?" I am talking about a time when capital punishment was just going out of operation. It was against their interests to say to someone who was interested in politics and might one day become a Member of Parliament, "Yes, we believe that capital punishment is a deterrent." They should have been saying, "No, it is not a deterrent." I do not remember one serious criminal sitting in the cells of any of our prisons of whom I asked the question "Is it a deterrent?" saying, "No." They said, "In the days when we knew that we might hang, we did not take guns on our enterprises. When we knew that we would hang, we did not take young tearaways with us who might go over the top and start killing people."
Serious criminals, who may or may not have killed and murdered, the IRA and the ordinary people who understand the motivations of ordinary people perhaps more clearly than the experts do with all their statistics make me sure that for some—not for all, but perhaps for many—capital punishment is a deterrent.
We shall all vote as our consciences lead us. I shall vote for the restoration of capital punishment, as I have always done, because I believe that its restoration will reduce the killing of the innocent, and the carrying of weapons which might be used to kill or maim the innocent. Whether juries have difficulties does not matter. What matters is that the would-be killer could never be sure in advance that he would not die if he were caught having killed someone innocent. I think that he would be deterred.
Of the two options I prefer the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, which states simply and clearly, as a matter of principle, avoiding all the criticism against it by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the learned Lord Chief Justice, that
The maximum penalty for murder shall be death".

Mr. Mullin: First, may I say how saddened I was to learn from the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that he is now in favour of the death penalty. Only recently I appeared with him on a television programme and he said the opposite.

Mr. Devlin: May I elucidate that point? Personally I am not in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment, but 86 per cent. of my constituents are. I regard my conscience as being no superior to that of my constituents, so I am prepared to represent their view on this issue, which I believe to be outside politics, and which was not in my manifesto, and I shall carry that through into action this evening.

Mr. Mullin: It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman lacks the guts to do what he knows to be right.
I am against the death penalty under all circumstances, for the reasons given by many hon. Members who have spoken so articulately tonight. I wish to dwell on only one aspect of the argument which has been touched upon by other hon. Members, and which I know a little about, and that is the possibility of mistakes because mistakes are the bottom line in this argument.
In America, a study carried out in 1985 by the American Civil Liberties Union concluded that this century in the United States 343 innocent people had been convicted of capital crimes and of those 25 had been executed. I mention that only in passing because tonight hon. Members on both sides of the argument have accepted that innocent people would be executed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who robustly faced up to the possibility, or certainty, that innocent people would be executed, as in the past others who take his view have not.
I believe that we have made rather more mistakes in convictions related to murder than we have been prepared to admit hitherto. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) say that he personally knew of 20 or 30 cases in which he believed that innocent persons had been convicted of murder. That is more than I thought we were dealing with, but from my own experiences I realise that it is quite a big problem.
One aspect of that problem is the inability of our legal system to own up to mistakes. The bigger the mistake, the more difficult our legal system finds it to own up. That was acknowledged by the Select Committee chaired by Lord Eden six years ago. which considered miscarriages of justice. It acknowledged then that the present system of appeal does not do justice in most of the great alleged miscarriages of justice.
Lord Denning, who often can be counted on to say out loud what other distinguished judges will say only in private, has illuminated another aspect of that problem. Faced with a choice between owning up to a mistake and discrediting public confidence in the legal system, many of our senior judges will choose to avoid owning up. That very serious allegation was made by Lord Denning in a programme in February. He was perfectly prepared to contemplate the possibility that innocent people had been and would be convicted and he felt that it was better that they should be, to avoid discrediting the legal system.
The problem is compounded by our habit of convicting people on the most slender evidence. That is at the root of many great alleged and accepted miscarriages of justice, as are confessions given in police custody and repudiated in court. They run like a thread through many of the cases with which we are familiar.
There was recently an even more remarkable example in the case of Winston Silcott, convicted of taking part in the murder of PC Blakelock. That was a particularly horrible murder that aroused great public feeling. He was convicted solely on the verbal evidence of a police officer. He did not sign any confession and there was no other evidence against him. He was, as they say in the trade, "verballed". I do not allege that Mr. Silcott was innocent, but it was not proved to my satisfaction that he was guilty. That is the view of many other reasonable people. No one is in any doubt that, had we had the death penalty, Winston Silcott would certainly have been an early candidate for hanging.
There are other cases of mistakes to which our judicial system has eventually been persuaded to own up. Some of those cases have been touched upon by other hon. Members. Timothy Evans was convicted and hanged in 1950. In 1953, the police caught the person who committed the crime and it took another 13 years, with little help from the judges, before our judicial system or the Home Office was prepared to pardon Timothy Evans.
A case that has not been mentioned is that of Cooper and McMahon who were convicted in 1970 of the Luton post office murder. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal by no fewer than four successive Home Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). On each occasion the judges sat stony-faced and said that they had heard nothing new. In the end, the Home Secretary of the day, now Lord Whitelaw, became so embarrassed at the inability of the Home Office to persuade the judges to own up to the mistake that he simply ordered the gates of the prison to be opened, gave the men a railway ticket each and sent them home without so much as an apology for the decade they had spent in gaol.
The case of Patrick Meehan has been mentioned. He was convicted in 1969 and released in 1977 with a pardon. He was framed on the evidence of police officers and would certainly have hanged. The case of Jack Preece has been mentioned. He was convicted in 1973 of a murder involving sexual assault. He was released and pardoned in


1981 after it became clear that the Home Office forensic scientist had dabbled with the evidence. He would certainly have hanged.
Geoffrey Mycock was convicted in 1969 and released in 1984. He was convicted on the basis of a confession obtained in police custody and on the evidence of our old friend the forensic scientist, Dr. Clift.
I should refer to one of Dr. Clift's colleagues, Dr. Frank Skuse. His was the key evidence in the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. Dr. Skuse, like Dr. Clift, has also been dismissed on the grounds of what the Home Office coyly describes as limited effectiveness. In Dr. Clift's case, 17 or 18 convicted people, including several convicted of murder, had to be released. In Dr. Skuse's case, no one has been released; that is because everyone knows that it would lead back to the Birmingham pub bombings and no one dares face up to that.
Ronald Leighton—no relation of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—was convicted in 1972 of the Confait murder. He was released and pardoned in 1975. He would probably have been hanged. Hon. Members have mentioned other cases, including that of James Hanratty who was hanged.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman might care to know that Ronald Leighton was 15 years of age at the time of the killing of Confait.

Mr. Mullin: I thank the hon. Gentleman and accept that point——

Mr. Allan Rogers: He was still not guilty.

Mr. Mullin: James Hanratty was hanged. I do not know whether he committed the crime, but I do know that the evidence was extremely slender and depended on the identification evidence of a woman who had been shot many times. He went to the gallows protesting his innocence to the last moment.
The case of the newsboy, Carl Bridgewater, has not been mentioned. That was a particularly emotive and wicked murder involving firearms. The people responsible for that would certainly have been sent to the gallows. Three men were convicted of that murder, but many people who have studied the case believe that they are innocent. I believe that the Home Secretary is looking into that case now.
I shall now deal with the case known as the greatest contemporary alleged miscarriage of justice, the conviction of six men who I believe to be innocent of the Birmingham pub bombings. No case this century has aroused such revulsion and emotion as the wicked act of placing those bombs in those pubs killing 21 persons. I am sure that nobody in the House is in any doubt that had we had the death penalty at that time those six would have been sent to the gallows. I have studied that case in detail and I know each of those men and their families well. I can place my hand on my heart and say that those men had nothing more to do with the Birmingham pub bombings than any of the people in the House today. I go further than that. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and probably on both sides of the argument

about the death penalty, know that to be the truth. The problem is that no one has yet devised a way to persuade our legal system to own up to a mistake of that gravity.
The question of deterrence has been mentioned. It is perfectly obvious that one does not deter by putting away the wrong people. I cannot see any advantage in that. I have an advantage over the House, in that I know who did carry out the Birmingham pub bombings. That is an issue I am happy to debate at some time. One of the people who did carry out the bombings went on to commit another crime. Had he been captured, and had the police concentrated on catching the right people, he would not have committed that murder.
The case of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings is well known. Three of the four people involved would certainly have been hanged. A total of seven or eight people were killed in those bombings. The only person convicted who would have survived is the woman who was too young to hang. All those people and another seven convicted with them were convicted on the basis of the confessions of one man, which were obtained in police custody.
I might add that those confessions had to be rewritten six or seven times in order to meet each new set of facts as they become available. It is widely felt by many people on both sides of the House who are more distinguished than myself that those people had nothing to do with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. In the year 1974, that would make a total of nine people who would have gone to the gallows for crimes they did not commit.
Judith Ward was convicted in 1974 of the M62 coach bombing. Unlike the other two cases, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that she did not do it. However, persons more distinguished than I who have studied the case in detail believe that Judith Ward, now serving 30 years imprisonment, is entirely innocent of the bombing. If that is so, she certainly would have hanged and 1974 would have been a black year in which a total of 10 innocent people would have gone to the gallows. Most of them were convicted by forensic evidence, which is now extremely dubious, or confessions given in police custody.
It has been suggested that perhaps we should have the death penalty only for terrorists, but that is precisely when mistakes are most likely to be made. In the wake of a terrorist atrocity, the police are most under pressure to get results, and public hysteria is at its highest.
It is sometimes said—usually by other judges—that we have the best judges in the world. We have some of the smuggest and most self-satisfied judges in the world. We also have some of the finest and some of the lousiest lawyers. Even if our judges are the best in the world—and that is not necessarily something I believe—mistakes would still occur. The choice between admitting a mistake on the scale that has been mentioned and discrediting the judicial system is one that judges find too difficult to face.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Thanet, North had robustly faced the possibility of the wrong people being convicted. He was prepared, with equanimity, to face that possibility, but Labour Members and some Conservative Members are not prepared to do so. That, however, is not the real test. The test is whether the hon. Member for Thanet, North is prepared to be hanged for something that he did not do. Under those circumstances, I suspect that he might not be quite so keen on the death penalty.
9 pm
If we had the death penalty, would our judges or the police be more willing to own up to mistakes that they know have taken place? I should like to think that that would he the case, but in the Birmingham case the police already know, or strongly suspect, that they have the wrong people. As to the Guildford and Woolwich cases, I believe that the authorities, including the police, have known probably from the third day, but certainly after six months, that they had got the wrong people. I believe that that is known all the way up the line to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The authorities understood that at the time because they caught the right people—the Balcombe street IRA unit. It is evident from the way in which the Balcombe street case was massaged, with the exceptional amount of fraud and perjury that had to be organised, that everyone involved understood what had happened. They had got the wrong people, and they were trying to cover up.
As to the case of Judith Ward, a friend of mine recently had lunch with an assistant chief constable of a force that was not involved in the original investigation. They were discussing the Birmingham case, and the assistant chief constable said, "That lassie in Durham gaol did not do the M62 coach bombing either, did she? That was a cock-up by the Yorkshire police." It is common gossip, and they know that they have got the wrong people.
I cannot help noticing that those who bay loudest for blood are the most reluctant to face up to the possibility of error. The fact that we have not had the death penalty for the past 20 years or so leaves open the possibility that one day we shall persuade those in authority to face up to the wrongs that have been committed in the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases. It leaves open the possibility that one day those people will be released and compensated, and justice will he done. Had we had the death penalty, this discussion would be academic.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: It is 23 years since the death penalty was done away with in this country. There is no doubt, on the admission of the Home Secretary, that murder has increased. In particular, extreme violence has increased in every sphere of society. It is not only a question of the elderly lady who is frightened to live alone. People are frightened to take their children to a football match. The increase in violence has caused grave concern to the House and British society.
What we have tried to achieve in bringing an end to violence has not succeeded. Indeed, violence is on the increase. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other hon. Members say that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder, how will they curb the further and greater violence that is continuing in our society? The Home Secretary, on his own admission, in the past week has realised the extent of this problem. He has said that he will further increase sentences for murder and extremely violent crime. Not before time, because there is no doubt that that is one of the most serious problems facing society today. It is no good having a society whose economy is improving and which sustains life through modern technology if that betterment of life is ruined by the type of violence that is going on in our society.
It is right to seek to put the onus of capital punishment on the judge, as my new clause 11 proposes. I can see the problems and dangers of the jury making such a decision. However, it is no good the Home Secretary saying that

judges can decide sentences in cases of extreme violence but that it would be wrong to put the onus on the judge to decide whether to impose the death sentence. Whichever way one looks at it, that is to have double standards. After all, the most competent person to decide whether the maximum penalty should apply must be the judge. He is the person with the wealth of experience, not the jury. He would not have been appointed if that were not the case.
There has been a lot of talk about the problem of martyrs in Northern Ireland. I should be extremely surprised if any hon. Member could easily remember the names of the hunger strikers, other than Bobby Sands. Let the House remember that it was the parents of those people on hunger strike who finally persuaded them to give up. Therefore, that argument does not arise.
Capital punishment has been compared with abortion. The unborn child cannot argue about being aborted.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is innocent.

Mr. Bendall: It is innocent. But the murderer has that decision in his own hands. Therefore, there is no comparison whatever.
The death penalty would act as a deterrent. In the 23 years that we have been without the death penalty the situation has worsened. Give us three years and let us see whether it acts as a deterrent. It will act as a deterrent to the young, headstrong person who murders an elderly person in his flat for 25 shillings. That is the sort of person that it will deter. It will deter the criminal from carrying a firearm. People have been carrying firearms in much greater abundance in recent years.
When I tried to introduce the death penalty in the House in 1982 I said that without the death penalty the use of firearms by criminals would continue to grow, and that is exactly what has happened. More and more, as time goes on, innocent people will be killed in the cross-fire when the police ferret out such criminals. If we had the death penalty, criminals would frisk one another to make sure that they did not have firearms. People would not go out with firearms. If the House decided to support the new clause, it would give the people a chance to see that the death penalty would act as the deterrent that they desire.

Mr. Roy Beggs: It is not inconsistent to have supported the Alton Bill to date and to be committed to the restoration of capital punishment. I know—probably more than, or at least as much as, my colleagues from Northern Ireland—the real difficulty of sharing the sorrow of the relatives of those murdered in Ulster. Be they Protestant or Roman Catholic, their sorrow is the same. I have no hesitation in supporting efforts made to restore the death penalty, because it is the only appropriate punishment for murder.
I am opposed to private vengeance, but I believe that we have a duty and responsibility to society and to protect the innocent and the defenceless. The premeditated killing of any human being—the taking of any human life—requires the maximum sentence that can be imposed for that crime. The death penalty is final and in my opinion it is the only just sentence.
Reference has been made to moral arguments. I hope that the House will bear with me, because I speak with conviction. I accept God's word as my guide for life. Many eminent philosophers, academics and, indeed, gifted orators in this House believe that man-made laws are superior to God's laws for mankind. I do not share their


views. I remind those unfamiliar with Genesis, chapter 9, of the covenant made between God and Noah. God blessed Noah, but required acceptance by him of the principle that
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed".
Also in the Old Testament, chapter 35 of Numbers contains examples of murder. After each example comes the specific verdict:
he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
In verse 33 of the same chapter, we read the reason for the death penalty:
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Regrettably, our land is polluted by evil and by innocent blood. We as a nation must return to God's law.
There is ample provision in God's law, through "cities of refuge", for lesser sentences than capital punishment for manslaughter; and I entirely agree that we must continue to make such provision. I also agree that life sentences must be applied where appropriate.
There are many other Old Testament references. Some would say of them, "That is only the Old Testament." The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already referred to Acts, chapter 25, verse 11, in which St. Paul says:
For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die".
That shows the continuity of the death penalty as between the Old and New Testaments.
God's law should guide us all. The opponents of the death penalty argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society. It could equally be argued that the present absence of capital punishment and the short sentences, with remission, for serious crimes are leading the United Kingdom into becoming an uncivilized society. Life sentences for murderers, those guilty of serious crimes against the elderly, against women and children should, in the absence of the death penalty, be sentences for the rest of the criminal's natural life. There is so much evil and so much injustice. There is too much sympathy for and with criminals. Too many excuses are made for them, and there is too little sympathy for the victims.
The sentences still do not fit the crimes that are being committed in our society. Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland. Since 1969, more than 250 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reserve have been murdered. Those figures refer only to one section of our security forces. There is no reference to the members of the regular Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment, but there are more than 2,000 innocent dead in Northern Ireland as a result of there being no real deterrent. Over 2,000 innocents have been murdered. Many of their murderers are still running free. The horror and tragedy of Enniskillen is almost forgotten.
Some terrorists may be fanatics. If the death penalty were in place for murder, it might not deter the fanatics, but it would remove some of them from circulation and thereby reduce the number of active terrorists who are terrorising law-abiding people. It would also make young

people who have not yet become involved as active terrorists think twice before they joined a terrorist organisation.
9.15 pm
Society must not be held hostage and under threat, as it would be if the argument about the possibility of terrorists and criminals taking hostages were allowed to prevent the restoration of the death penalty for murder. The threat is already being carried out, as the release of prisoners is sought in exchange for hostages and as hostages are held for ransom to raise funds for terrorist organisations. Each hon. Member, according to his conscience, abhors evil, but we must also act so that the scales of justice are tipped towards greater detection, conviction and punishment for crime. It has already been said that there is too much sympathy for criminals and too little sympathy and help for the victims. The state has a basic responsibility to protect its citizens. I contend that, without the death penalty as the ultimate sanction, we cannot combat crime successfully or properly protect society.

Mr. John Wheeler: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He proposes the restoration of capital punishment in Northern Ireland, but there is no jury system in Northern Ireland. For many centuries now nobody has been executed in the United Kingdom other than upon the verdict of a jury. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to implement capital punishment in Northern Ireland? Has he consulted the judiciary in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Beggs: That is a technical point. We are debating the principle of the restoration of the death penalty. If the decision is taken to restore the death penalty, the implications of its application to Northern Ireland will have to be dealt with. I have no doubt that there are honourable, upright citizens of both persuasions who are willing to do jury service and who should be given that opportunity. Hon. Members with constituencies in Northern Ireland continually say in this House, "Treat us as every other British citizen is treated." We ask for no more and no less. We ask for equal treatment. We shall accept the responsibilities that flow from it.
We should like to see an end to the present generous remission system. Those who are in prison for serious terrorist offences become recycled terrorists. They rejoin their organisations when they are released after having served only a short sentence. The death penalty is imposed almost daily on innocents by terrorists, who are the most sophisticated criminals today. Capital punishment must be reintroduced to restore balance, and to protect the innocent.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Member agree with me that in the history of Northern Ireland the 20 years of alternatives to the death penalty have been an abysmal failure? Will he agree with me that after 20 years murder is increasing? Does he therefore agree with me that the House owes it to the innocent to put pressure on the terrorists, on the guilty, to allow the innocent the right to live?

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The tragedy of the last 20 years is that Members of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies have not been heard. Their advice has been


dismissed. A former colleague and member of my own party who served in this House, Robert Bradford, was himself a victim and was murdered. I ask all who have supported everything but the death penalty, including the failed Anglo-Irish Agreement, to consider seriously the value of introducing at this time capital punishment for murder.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: For obvious reasons, this speech will he a short one. The House will forgive me if it is somewhat truncated and is not a natural development of arguments at the length that I would like.
I respect the views of the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), with which I fundamentally disagree. I respect, as does everyone on my side of this argument—I almost said "on this side of the House", but it is not that sort of debate—the fact that he is in the front line. I hope that he respects our views too and remembers that on various tragic occasions we in mainland Britain have also been in the front line. The final point that I address to him for his consideration is that, in my humble and respectful view, if this new clause and an amendment to the new clause are passed we in mainland Britain will be more and more in the tragic front line that inevitably will follow capital punishment generally and capital punishment for terrorism in particular.
The deterrence argument was very capably put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). But if it is so obvious that capital punishment is a deterrent, it is an awfully long time in the proving. Various distinguished lawyers, and a very distinguished Royal Commission in 1953, have not been satisfied that capital punishment is a deterrent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton agrees on this and says that it will never he possible to prove it because we do not know the motives for murder. We then had a whole stream of legal reminiscences about his various clients who were quite satisfied that it would have been a deterrent for them. But, by the very fact that he agrees that it cannot be proved, he is only stating his belief based upon his very considerable experience.
Many hon. Members may not think of me as a legal eagle, but I had 14 years' practice at the Bar and a certain amount of criminal Bar experience, and also appeared as counsel in various murder trials, and I utterly and completely disagree with the conclusions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Additionally, since everybody is speaking a bit personally about this subject. I also had certain experience as a very young member of the Bar as a judge's marshal in the days when capital punishment existed, when I sat next to the judge during a whole series of capital murder trials. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, in my view the worst murderer got off, and the most pathetic, who was almost the exact replica of the person to whom my hon. Friend referred in the midst of his oratory about an old person getting a battering and so on—one pensioner killing another in a lodging house in the course or furtherance of theft of a few shillings—was well, firmly and tragically hanged. So much for my hon. Friend's new clause and the example that he seeks to draw.
I support what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. For three or four months, I actually sat with and, by the peculiar position of judge's marshal, I lived and ate with the judges who had to try such cases.

Even then, let alone now, the effect on them during a trial and when the moment comes—I dare say that not everyone has witnessed it—when the black cap goes on is not only formidable in itself but pretty traumatic for those who must wear it.
Over the years, I have had varying views about capital punishment. I voted against capital punishment on the last occasion, and I shall vote against it tonight. I shall never vote in favour of it again. In 1983—this is purely personal—I sat in my usual place, waiting for the vote to be taken, having supported capital punishment. I waited with the first of recent Parliaments with a considerable Conservative majority. Hon. Members may remember that we were not quite as sure about the result as we perhaps have been on other occasions. The pride that I felt for those Conservative hon. Members who, on that occasion, voted against capital punishment was accompanied by a slight shame that I felt for what I had just done. It made me decide definitely that never again would I support such a measure.
I shall make two final points in addition to, rather than by way of repetition of, what has been said. The amendments have already been described as crazy. Without going into legalistic argument, I thoroughly endorse that description. From his point of view, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was quite rightly anxious to emphasise that there would be appeals all round—that point has not really been made yet—whoever imposed the capital punishment. Whether there is a judge or a jury, it i highly likely that, from the defence or the prosecution, appeal there will be.
What a nightmare it will be for the Court of Appeal when a whole parade of cases are put before it on exactly the same grounds as the case before them when capital punishment has not been decreed by either judge or jury. How on earth can the Court of Appeal ever sentence anyone to death in such circumstances? One has occasionally heard of Home Secretaries almost being made ill by the decision. The exercise of the Queen's prerogative of mercy in this sort of matter would be a crazy task and quite impossible to execute.
With regard to terrorism, and without going into the details of the arguments, the same rules must apply, if ever this type of measure is introduced, in mainland Britain and Northern Ireland. I regret to say that that is the fact of the matter. If we cannot have juries in Northern Ireland, by way of caution trials may have to be brought across to mainland Britain. In the terms of the proposed measures, the consequences of terrorism, capital punishment, hostage taking, revenge killing and so on will not be confined to Northern Ireland. If this crazy legislation is passed by the House, we in mainland Britain will be in the same situation.
I say finally to the House that we have had enough of these debates. There should be an end to them. For goodness sake, can we not get on with dealing with crime and murder and not excite false expectations about capital punishment?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I have listened to nearly all the debate, but I shall be brief and try to avoid repeating points that have already been made. I shall confine myself to four points. Two are propositions that have, I feel, been established: during the debate, and two


are issues that have—surprisingly—been avoided, particularly by the proponents of the new clause and amendments.
The propositions that seem to me to have been established—and I have listened carefully throughout—are these: first, that should we vote for the new clause and amendments, we shall undoubtedly be voting for a course of action that will result in the killing of innocent people. That was admitted by a number of speakers who favour the reintroduction of capital punishment, and spelt out very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who referred to many cases of people given life sentences since abolition who would otherwise undoubtedly have been executed. Without doubt, those who vote for the new clause will vote in the full knowledge that innocent men and women will be killed as a result of their decision.
The second proposition is perhaps rather negative, but it, too, has undoubtedly been established. It is impossible to substantiate by statistics the case that capital punishment is a deterrent. In view of the first proposition—that the reintroduction of the penalty will result in innocent people being killed—it seems to me that the failure to establish the second means that it behoves everyone to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott: No, I must be brief.
Evidence exists—it has surprisingly been ignored today—particularly in North America where states exist side by side, some with the death penalty and some without. Such states as California and Mississippi, with murder rates of 10·5 and 10·6 per 100,000 of the population—those are the 1985 figures—have the death penalty. States without the death penalty have figures ranging down to the lowest in North Dakota, with one murder per 100,000 people. There is clearly no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters; far from it. If anything the evidence points in the other direction.
Let me call in evidence someone who ought to know something about whether deterrence works—someone whose unique evidence is contained in his autobiography. Perhaps the best-known executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, said:
It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown … All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.
That was said by the executioner who, first as assistant and then as public executioner, carried out more than 400 executions between 1931 and 1956. His is surely a unique testimony which the House would be mistaken to ignore.
That brings me to two points that have been ignored almost entirely—and, I have to say, in a rather cowardly way—by the proponents of the new clause. They have not talked at all about the method of execution. And, my word, it is very easy to talk in generalities in the relative comfort of these Benches when others must deliver the goods.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) at least gave us a negative statement; he said that he was opposed to hanging. As we know, there is no humane way to kill people. We know how revolting hanging is. Again I call in evidence the Pierrepoint autobiography which described the careful calculations which Albert Pierrepoint and his uncle had to make to determine the strength of the condemned man's neck so as not to give him too big a drop which would pull the head off, and not to give too small a drop which would result in strangulation rather than a speedy death. People must consider seriously any form of judicial killing, whether by the electric chair, by lethal injection or by gassing. There has been no reference to that. It is cowardly that the proponents of capital punishment, who want the House to change its policy after all these years, should not tell us precisely how they would carry out capital punishment.
That brings me to my final point. Again the proponents of capital punishment have not told us who should carry it out. All too often the House ignores such matters. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) touched on this but he was not convincing. If we vote for the return of the death penalty, executioners will have to be recruited. They may be other kinds of executioners rather than hangmen, but executioners they will be. There was a strange tradition with the Pierrepoints whereby father passed on to brother who passed on to nephew the job of official executioner.
Where would we find new executioners? Where would we train them? Would it be in South Africa where so many executions are carried out? Would executioners be recruited by public advertisement? These are the grisly and detailed questions which proponents of capital punishment have refused to face up to. Again I call in evidence the person who knows about these things in a way that no one in the House can possibly know about them. Albert Pierrepoint said at the end of his autobiography, and I remind the House that he said it with the awful burden of his experience, having carried out over 400 executions:
I now sincerely hope that no man is ever called upon to carry out another execution in my country. I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people.
In my judgment, that is a responsibility which the House should never hand over to anyone.

Mrs. Peacock: As we have heard, this subject has as always produced strong feelings inside and outside the House. Very few Members have mentioned the victims. Could we not give a little thought to the victims? What I have to say comes from deeply held convictions which have not been lightly or recently arrived at but which I have been persuaded over many years are right. My convictions are widely supported throughout the country.
There have been many passionate speeches on both sides of the argument for many different reasons. In recent years there have been 16 debates in the House, all resulting in an abolitionist stance towards capital punishment. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed and we have not heard anything new in today's debate.
It is my belief and the belief of those who support the new clause that capital punishment is the supreme deterrent. If not, why do people appeal against it? If they are not afraid to die, why do they appeal? As evidence for


this, I draw the attention of the House to the fundamental and obvious changes which have taken place in society since partial abolition in 1965 and full abolition in 1969.
Recent tragic events in this country relating to elderly people and especially to innocent children are graphic examples of the fact that the possession of and resort to lethal weapons have become commonplace in today's Britain. In the 10 years from 1973 to 1983, the number of offences involving guns rose from 1,754 to 8,067. The number of murders arising out of the commission of some other offence—usually theft or rape—rose by a staggering 73 per cent. from 1965 to 1977. Figures for the years since show similar increases.
It is true that such rises reflect a general increase in the level of crime and that an overwhelming statistical case for the deterrent effects of capital punishment is always difficult to make, as is the argument that it does not deter. However, as with many other arguments over this issue, no absolute proof can be obtained. It is clearly impossible to calculate how many people would be deterred from carrying and using firearms if capital punishment was available to the courts.
We are told that the reintroduction of capital punishment would encourage a nothing-to-lose attitude among certain sections of the public. Do we not already have a nothing-to-lose attitude on the streets of Britain today? We must emphasise what has been an undercurrent in my comments so far—that murder has become commonplace. We never thought that we would see it in the streets of our country, but we have it and it cannot be denied.
Some people would argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society. What is a civilised society thinking about when it encourages and enables elderly people to be battered to death in their homes and young children to be murdered when they are walking to their grandmothers? Recently there has been the "babes in the wood" murder in Brighton. I understand that the parents of those children have been in the House to see how Parliament debates these issues.
When will we think of the victims? When will we ask the courts to think of the victims and stop just thinking about the murderers? The criminal law no longer provides credible sanctions for the most heinous form of wrongdoing. Something must he done, and the House must take that decision today. The majority of people in this country are in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. Many polls have shown overwhelming evidence that that is so and that people would support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). While we cannot rule by a national referendum, if we had a national referendum today, I am sure that there would be overwhelming support for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Let us make no mistake about that.
Of course, as Members of Parliament, we are representatives. We are not delegates, so we are not delegated to represent views. However, we have to take into account the views of our constituents; otherwise, why are we here? We must listen occasionally to what they have to say. If our constituents decide that their interests are best protected by the death penalty, who are we to tell them that that is not so? Do we think of ourselves as morally superior? Do we have some secret information which persuades us to decide otherwise? I suggest we do not. It cannot be that a small majority of 650 people,

elected to the House, are in a position to take such an arrogant attitude merely because of the letters MP after their name.
On the streets, murder and violence are not distant and unreal, as many of our constituents are finding out on their own doorsteps. Fear of such happenings, not only perhaps to ourselves, but to our children and to our elderly relatives, is a constant companion and is real.
Of course, we recognise the fear of miscarriages of justice, of hostage-taking and of martyrdom. However, I implore the House that we should take this giant step for sanity and reintroduce the death penalty. It is high time that some hon. Members came down from their ivory towers and listened to what the people of this country want and voted for new clause 1.

Mr. Couchman: There is little fresh to say in this debate. The arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment have been repeated many times since its abolition in 1965. As a convinced abolitionist and strict non-reintroductionist since before the abolition of the death penalty, I for one have no shame in reiterating the three defects of capital punishment which have held me steadfast in my view.
Although I am a fan of the British system of justice, I do not believe in judicial infallibility. I am persuaded that capital punishment is not a unique deterrent for a unique crime. Its reintroduction would further brutalise a society in which violence is already far too prevalent. A great deal has been said this evening about the mistakes that can be made. I fully admit that I am most persuaded against the reintroduction of capital punishment by the possibility of a mistake.
We have heard about John Preece, Patrick Meehan, Albert Taylor and the three young men who were convicted of the Confait killing. We have heard about the Birmingham pub bombers. The common thing bringing all those people together is that they were all alive to benefit from a review of their conviction and sentence, and to enjoy a pardon, if granted. One can only speculate as to whether any of them would have been executed if the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) had been the law in force when they were convicted.
Inevitably, those of us who oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty will always return to the case of Timothy Evans. The posthumous pardon that was granted to Evans in 1966 was cold consolation to his mortal remains, lying interred in quicklime in unconsecrated ground. Other cases cause us unease, such as the unequal treatment of Craig and Bentley—Craig, the killer, was spared but Bentley, the accomplice, was executed. We remember the doubts about Hanratty. I do not believe that anyone in the House does not regret the execution of Ruth Ellis. The irony of her case is that, had her lover, whom she subsequently shot, not assaulted her so brutally that she lost the baby she was carrying, she would not have been executed, because pregnant women could not be executed at that time.
I re-read our debates of 1983 and 1987. No hon. Member who spoke against reintroduction failed to mention his concern about the possibility of the innocent being executed. No hon. Member who spoke in favour—an honourable exception tonight was my hon. Friend


the Member for Thanet, North when he moved his new clause—was prepared to shoulder the responsibility of the possibility of executing the innocent.
New clause 1 places an impossible onus on the jury, because public expectations will be raised by media reporting in particularly notorious murder cases, stating that there should be a recommendation for capital punishment. Clearly it is essential that a majority verdict could not lead to the death sentence; otherwise, the dissenting jurors would feel that they were party to sending an innocent person to death. Juries which are cognisant of their full responsibilities might be inclined to find the accused guilty of a lesser crime. It happened before and it will assuredly happen again.
I have never been convinced of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. More eloquent people than I have given reasons for that, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Therefore, I shall not delay the House any longer on that issue.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) challenged those who are in favour of reintroduction to explain what method of execution they would prefer. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North does not like the idea of a return to the rope. What then would we have? Would we have the continental guillotine or garotte? Would we consider the transatlantic, high technology, electric chair or gas chamber? Or, if we are looking for a truly deterrent sentence, perhaps we should consider one of the brutal judicial murders prescribed by Sharia law, such as by stoning or the sword.
Another deterrent would surely be the media representatives who would accompany any person who had been convicted and sentenced to death. We would have that horrible build-up, which we used to have without the benefit of television. I am young enough to remember the grisly ritual of trial and appeal; of consideration by the Home Secretary; the titillation of the visit by the relatives on the last occasion on the night before execution; the prospects and possibility of a last-minute stay of execution; and the climax of that little white notice being hammered on the board outside prison walls by the warden just after 8 o'clock to say that another poor soul had met his end.
Our record on capital punishment is truly dreadful, from the days of Henry VIII when 72,000 were put to death in 38 years to the early 19th century when we were still hanging near-infants of seven years. Do we really want the brutalisation which would accompany the reintroduction of the death penalty? I think not.
I differ entirely from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) who seemed to lay great stress on the opinion polls that have been published over the past 24 years and normally depend for their sample on about 1,000 voters. Interestingly, he rejected the notion that we should have a referendum, in which all electors should be asked for their opinion. If we were subjected to a referendum after a lead up period similar to that of a general election or the EC referendum in 1975, with the television showing mock executions and throwbacks to the Ellis trial and execution, the answer would probably be no to capital punishment. I urge all hon. Members to reject the new clause and to dispense with this matter once and for all.

Mr. David Amess: Five years ago following the 1983 general election we had a similar debate on the restoration of capital punishment. I sat through all our proceedings and the debate had a lasting effect on me. I could not believe the sense of jubilation when the result was announced. I drove home feeling depressed because the House had not reflected the views of the general public.
Murder has become so commonplace that it hardly draws any attention. The day after the 1983 debate the newspapers reported two further murders. I wondered how many hon. Members when they woke up the next day felt that they had done everything they possibly could to deter murder. Few could have answered yes.
Two years ago my cousin's wife was murdered. She took her children to school, parked her car in a multi-storey car park and was stabbed to death 52 times. The murder and the conduct of the trial were reported, but then the media dropped the case. No one wants to know what happens to the victims of crime. It is not good media copy. I hope that the 650 Members of this honourable House are interested in the victims of crime and that each and every one of us in doing our duty will ensure that we make laws which will deter crime.
I thought that the purpose of a sentence was not only to protect society from the criminal, but to teach the person who committed the crime not to repeat it. How on earth can one teach a person who has murdered someone not to murder again? How can we justify keeping someone such as the Yorkshire Ripper in gaol? He murdered 13 women; he raped a further seven and he destroyed the lives of more than 100 people. We continue to keep him in gaol and no detail is given as to how he is guarded.

Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire Ripper is kept in a secure mental home? The man is mad and he would never have been executed.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opinion, but I am not sure that that is the case. I certainly do not believe that every person who kills another is insane. A number of people know perfectly well what they have done.
How can we justify keeping people such as Brady or Hindley in prison? I am sick to death of the endless media stories about them and of people pleading that they should be released. I do not believe that any hon. Member has the right to ask a person who has had a loved one murdered to forgive.
I hope that when we vote we shall not see scenes of jubilation similar to those that followed the vote in 1983. This is a serious matter. On the 18 occasions on which we have discussed it we have been rather arrogant and we have not reflected the views of the public.
I believe that murder is the ultimate crime and it should receive the ultimate sentence. When we wake up tomorrow morning we might unfortunately read of more murders, such as the three young women who were recently murdered in separate parts of the country. I hope that following our vote, however, we shall all have a clear conscience and feel that we have done all in our power to deter such crime.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Capital punishment is usually discussed in legal or moral terms. The underlying assumption is that all that has to happen is for Parliament


to bring in a Bill and there we are. I question that assumption and I believe that if we brought back hanging it would not work.
The first reason why capital punishment would not work is that the attitude and behaviour of juries have changed enormously in the past few years. Any prosecution lawyer will tell the House that it is extremely difficult to get a conviction in a murder trial. The attitude towards civic responsibility has changed and, because of sympathy for the accused or whatever, it is difficult to get a conviction. A leading prosecution lawyer who has spent most of his professional life dealing with murder trials told me that if hanging were in prospect his job would be impossible. If that were the case, what would happen? The prosecution might try for a reduced charge of manslaughter and therefore someone who should go down for life would come out with a four or five-year sentence. If an obvious premeditated murder had been committed it would not he admissible to bring a reduced charge. Therefore, there would be a strong risk that someone who had committed a murder would be acquitted and would walk from court. We should not do that and I should not be asked to expose my constituents to that risk.
Hon. Members have mentioned the much vaunted 70 per cent. of public opinion that is in favour of hanging. If people were asked the abstract question, "Do you want to bring back hanging?" many of them would say yes. But what matters is what happens when the public are confronted with a real case of a person who will be hanged and the broadcasting media being let loose on the family. We did not have that in the 1950s.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Sackville: The time when the broadcasting media get loose on the families and start interviewing the weeping daughters and the mother and relations of the accused man and when people start focusing on the physical method of execution is the moment when opinion needs to be tested.
I remind the House that a large proportion of the present adult population have been brought up since abolition and their attitude is different from that of people who were brought up when the death penalty was in force. To carry out such a drastic and uncivilised act as marching one of our fellow citizens to the end of a passage, putting a rope round his neck and dropping him through a trapdoor to break his neck, a democratic Government in peace time would need at least 90 per cent. of public opinion behind them. We would be lucky to get 50 per cent. If the House votes in favour of the new clause and in the more unlikely event of its being passed in another place, the legislation would not work and hanging would not have the effect that people want. I do not

underestimate the public concern about crime and violence, but this is the wrong way to go and I urge the House resoundingly to reject the new clause.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is said, and I accept, that Parliament cannot characterise capital murder. We cannot say that only terrorists should hang, because of the difficulties of determining whether a bank robbery is committed in the course of terrorism. It is said that we cannot hang those who kill warders because the man who kills a warder in escaping from prison and then kills a young woman outside could not be executed for one murder and not for the other. It is said that we cannot have a referendum on these matters because the issues are too complex to put to the people. It is said that we cannot impose life sentences that mean life because we could not control people who were serving perhaps 30 years in prison. If we accept all those things we are left with the new clause.
We cannot return to the days of the automatic death penalty for all murders, because about 75 per cent. of murders fall within a tightly knit group. I do not deny for an instant the awesome responsibility that would be placed on a jury by the new clause. It is not a perfect solution, but I suspect that for modern conditions it is the only solution that makes any sense. It is said that the state should never commit judicial execution, but where does that leave the concept of the just war? It is said that the state should never take life judicially and legally, but where does that leave the concept of abortion? It is said that judicial execution is not a deterrent. but why is it that before the abolition of the death penalty professional criminals took great care not to go armed when committing a robbery?
The arguments are evenly balanced, but in the end this is a moral issue. In moral issues the judgments of our constituents, inexpert as many of them may be, are as valid as ours. We in the House have a duty to respect and to honour the judgment of our constituents. If we do not honour those judgments, an increasing number of people may become alienated from the parliamentary process because they feel that Parliament is not prepared to take the ultimate step to defend their freedom and their liberty under the law. For those reasons, I shall vote for the new clause.

Mr. David Wilshire: Five hours ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) introduced the new clause, he said that he wanted this debate so that new Members would have a chance to say what they thought and to cast their votes. Not many new Conservative Members have had the chance to speak. I am one of those 53 new Members. Like the other 52, tonight I have to move from a personal belief to a public opinion. Like the other 52, I have been subjected to a fair amount of persuasion to vote yes. But, unlike most of the other 52, I am a long-standing opponent of capital punishment. Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who joined the House last June at the same time as I did, said that he had decided, after pressure, to change his mind from voting no to voting yes. I, too, have thought along those lines.

Mr. Devlin: It is not pressure to consult one's constituents; it is not pressure to consult representatives from every part of one's constituency—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Devlin.

Mr. Devlin: I would contend that this is a moral issue and the moral opinion of the highest in the land is as good as that of the lowest in the land; therefore we in the House should reflect the majority of the moral opinions in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that point in a moment. I want to explain why the train of thought which we have just heard is wrong.
I have not found the past few weeks easy. I have come to realise that it is much easier to have personal views than it is to have public opinions and a public vote. I have come to understand very clearly the force of a widely held public opinion. I accept that the majority of people in this country want us to vote yes tonight. I have also come to appreciate the great advantage of trying to please my electorate and my party supporters. I freely admit that I have been tempted to go down that track.
In the past few weeks, I have been doing a number of things. I have been thinking, I have been reading everything that has been sent to me, and I have been listening. I have contacted all my local Church leaders and I have looked for new facts and evidence. I have concluded that there is no new information and there is no consensus from the Churches. I have had very little direct input from my constituents saying one thing or the other. But in the past few days I have come to appreciate something else. If I may paraphrase the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I have been looking for a pragmatic way out of an instinctive tight corner.
I have to admit that some of my motives were to try to please my electorate and to protect my future. I have ended up not very proud of myself. However, despite all my wriggling, I still believe that judicial killing is wrong. I still hold the view that vengeance has no place in the law of the land. I still know that I could not pull that lever. Yet it is predictable that I will be criticised by quite a lot of people for taking this view. In my defence, I would say that Members of Parliament are often criticised for having no principles. They are often criticised for trying to curry favour at any price and for not standing up for their beliefs. What price a Member of Parliament who has lost his self-respect?
I end by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and anybody else who is thinking of switching their vote from no to yes that we should stand by the principles that we all had before we came here. Remember the need to like what one sees when next looking in the mirror and, above all, hang on to a vision of a future that is caring and compassionate, a future that will override vengeance and will not return to judicial killing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We have heard a lot today about terrorism. Many of the worst terrorist attacks are conducted during hijack. Most hijacks are carried out in order to free imprisoned terrorists. In the hijacks, innocent lives are lost. In the recent Kuwaiti hijack, if there had been no terrorists in prison in Kuwait, there would have been no hijack.
Most terrorist crimes are carefully planned and entail work and organisation by many people. One need only deter a single person in that chain of terror, and the act is never committed.
Sands and his friends believed that the Home Secretary would succumb to blackmail. To his great credit, he did not do so, and no one afterwards starved himself to death.
Since the abolition of the death penalty, figures for murder have been misleading. Once the death penalty had been abolished, the prosecution was more ready to accept a plea of diminished responsibility. Therefore, the figures are completely distorted. Hon. Members have argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If that is so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) pointed out, it is strange that people condemned to death always appeal.
What frightens me about the present position is that there is a premium on wiping out witnesses. Twenty years ago the noble Lord—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are coming to the end of an important debate and I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Twenty years ago the noble lord who until recently was the Lord Chancellor pointed out that if criminals receive no higher penalty for killing than for robbery they would simply eliminate witnesses to reduce the probability of detection. How much more is that the case now that we have introduced the concept of criminal bankruptcy? That means that criminals lose not only their liberty but their loot. They can no longer serve their sentences contemplating living a life of luxury on their ill-gotten gains. That will be even more the case when the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law and drug dealers will also be deprived of their loot.
The crucial point is that, whatever one does in law, in practice one can never abolish the death penalty. One takes it from the calm atmosphere of the court and places it on the streets. If criminals carry guns, which are now standard items of criminal equipment, the police must be armed when they face death on our behalf in apprehending armed criminals. In the shoot-out that follows, innocent bystanders receive the death sentence, while the criminals, when they are apprehended, receive a custodial sentence. As with abortion, the innocent are killed. That cannot be right, so I shall have no hesitation in voting for the restoration of the death penalty.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The House is always restless at this time because it wishes to vote. If I am given a fair hearing, I shall be brief.
I should like to remind hon. Members of the sort of country in which we live. Women cannot pass freely without fear of being molested, raped or murdered. The elderly do not feel safe if they are out after dark and even do not feel safe in their own homes. Children cannot play safely without fear of being abused or perhaps murdered. That is the society by which hon. Members stand to be judged.
Every hon. Member has a duty to protect the citizens of this country by every means possible.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that motion. We are coming to the last speech, and we have not had the winding-up speech yet.

Mr. Dickens: It would be quicker if I were to be allowed to finish; it will save a vote.
That is the sort of country that we have produced, and the state has a duty to protect its citizens. Members of Parliament, whatever sentencing powers we are giving our judges, are not getting it right to the satisfaction of the public. If we get the highest tariff right—for murder, to restore the death penalty—I am sure that it will be reflected throughout sentencing provisions and the attitudes of judges.
If the police, who are at the sharp end of the job, feel that it is a sanction and deterrent that they would wish to have, who are we to deny them it when we expect so much from them to protect everyone?
I hope that every hon. Member, even those weak-willed hon. Members who do not reflect public opinion, will realise that many hon. Members treat this place as a glorified club. They are here to carry out the will of the people, not for the glory of being Members of Parliament. I hope and pray that we shall go through the Lobby and once again lower the majority. There will be a bigger vote than ever in favour of restoring capital punishment, which will show the way for the future. This matter will not go away, so let us show the way forward in the Lobby.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is right: there is concern among our people about the crime rate. It has steadily become worse under every Government, and it is a good deal worse than it was in 1979. Perhaps we would do better to investigate why that has happened and why I am concerned because I made arrangements to collect a lady at 10 o'clock who was worried about walking near the House in the centre of our capital city. Perhaps we should be considering that rather than pretending that there is a simple answer that will sweep all the problems away.
I have spoken in many debates on capital punishment, but tonight we are voting on new clause 1, not on the principle of capital punishment. Many hon. Members have sat and listened to the debate as it has gone backwards and forwards, and a very good debate it has been. However, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is mistaken if he thinks that we have been talking about the principle of capital punishment. He has to decide whether the new clause would work. My argument is that it would not, and it is that argument that I wish to pursue.
There is anger and anxiety in our inner cities. People are asking what can be done, and some think that if we only had capital punishment all would be solved. They forget that when the crime rate was last at the height it is—in the words of the Home Secretary—in the 1880s, there was capital punishment. It was not long since people had been hanged in public. There was no shortage of punishment by hanging, and in other ways, but still the crime rate was high. Perhaps we should figure out why matters improved just after the first world war. It could not have been because of the death penalty, because that had existed before.
Political manifestos at the time of elections say, "We shall solve the problem of law and order." Such claims bring us into disrepute with the electorate because they know it is not true. We know that it is not true. I was in the United States last week, in mid-town New York with its guns and drugs. If America leads the way, God help us.

That cannot possibly be due to the lack of capital punishment. The new clause certainly could not repair the situation.
New clause 1 is nonsense. The Lord Chief Justice has given his views on it, not on the principle. It is not his duty to give us his views on capital punishment in principle. It is his job to tell the Home Secretary whether he thinks the new clause would work, and lie has said that he does not think that it would. It gives duties to jurors and the courts that they were not designed to have. It also gives powers to the Court of Appeal, which I had not realised until that was referred to today. In his reasonably good opening speech, the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that the new clause was not a return to 1957 and categorisation. Nevertheless, the new clause brings random categorisation which would make life for the courts, and certainly for the appeal courts, so difficult that they could not carry out their job.
Our job is to pass legislation that can be interpreted by the courts and will work. Whatever the views of right hon. and hon. Members, the new clause cannot go to the other place to be corrected. It would be turned aside straight away. It is not worth voting for. Those who are concerned about capital punishment—I understand their concern—can do better than this. However, it is on this that we are voting today.
I shall vote against the new clause. If this were put before the Home Secretary by someone from the drafting department, the Treasury solicitors or wherever, he would not have to consider it. As the Home Secretary knows, the best Home Secretaries are not lawyers. The motive for the new clause is misconceived. It is a return to the 1880s. Suffice it to say that capital punishment would not deter. It certainly would not have prevented the two burglaries that I have had in the past year. One of the young men involved was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and another to one year. They would not have been deterred by capital punishment. [Interruption.] They would not have been affected in any way. The reason for the rise in the crime rate has nothing to do with the absence of capital punishment.
I do not find the statistics neutral. I feel strongly about the moral aspect, but if I felt for one moment that the statistics showed that captial punishment deterred, I should have to take note of that—perhaps not as a Back Bencher but certainly as a Home Secretary. I do not believe that that is what the statistics show. They do not show that the number of homicides, however classified, would be reduced.
I am conscious of the time and I shall keep to the limits that we agreed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Members who are cheering are those who have not been here for the debate. In view of the interest outside, and before we go into the Lobbies to vote, it might be as well to consider all the aspects of this matter. If it is so important, we should surely do so. It is certainly important to our colleagues from Northern Ireland who live with death and who have expressed themselves in such terms this afternoon. I warrant that those cheering do not fall into the same category as Northern Ireland Members, on both sides of the fence.
Hon. Members have referred to terrorism. I understand their feelings and the bestiality of it. One could not think of Arab terrorism and what the Arabs have done to people without feeling ashamed of humanity. However, I reflect that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


I do not believe that that is true in Northern Ireland; that is why I ended political or special category status in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland everybody over the age of 18 has a vote. They can express themselves at the hustings. If the terrorists on both sides of the divide stood for election and could win a majority, it would put us in a different position, but they do not. It is hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the people of Northern Ireland, just as Mr. Haughey represents the people in the south of Ireland. The ballot box is there.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: A fixed ballot box.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend says "a fixed ballot box", but there is a ballot box in Northern Ireland, which is not the case elsewhere. There is sometimes a certain weariness when the Irish speak because it is felt that the Irish never forget. As I consider the new clause, I sometimes think that the English never remember. They forget what happened in 1916. They ignore the question of martyrs on both sides of the divide.
As there are no juries in Northern Ireland it is impossible to implement the new clause. It could not possibly be applied in Northern Ireland. It would be nonsense to vote for the proposal and expect it to apply in Northern Ireland.
Like the Home Secretary, I do not believe that capital punishment for murder in general and terrorism in particular is the answer to our problems. As I said, I do not call in aid a moral judgment. In any event, the principle of capital punishment is not the issue tonight; it is the new clause on which we are to vote. It is not fit to be passed, and it should be voted down this evening.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends who would like to see the return of capital punishment, and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, (Mr. Gale) who tabled the new clause. I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), for whom I have great respect. This is the second time that we have met across the Chamber on this subject.
To most hon. Members attending the debate the issue is capital punishment. Three new clauses and an amendment have been selected and we are debating the question whether the House feels that capital punishment should return. If we decide that it should return, we shall consider the whole situation again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] We can change the new clause in another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Just let us have it and we will show hon. Members; give us the chance and we will deliver. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Let us try it and we will not disappoint. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us vote"] We shall have a vote, but there must be a summing up on this side, as there was on the other. That is what democracy is about.
For most of the time during civilised life, there has been capital punishment. We have only to look at the Scriptures. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to them in his speech. There has been much talk of morality but little of the Scriptures in this debate. There is reference to the death penalty in both the Old and the New Testaments. It is referred to in the 37th article of the Church of England and in St. Augustine's writings. It

was only about 40 years ago in this country that the movement to abolish capital punishment began. It coincided with the beginning of the permissive society. The abolition of the death penalty has been the flagstaff of the permissive society. We know what that has meant for the people of this country.
Local newspapers are full of articles about robbery, murder, rape and, literally, pillage. These are bad times for the weak, the handicapped, the old and the young.
10.30 pm
Capital punishment could be used to deter terrorism. Six airliners have been hijacked, the last one in the middle east. If hijackings continue, nobody will want to fly in aeroplanes. What will happen to the Channel tunnel then? Political terrorists believe that they will be released, their friends will continue to take hostages and there will be more deaths.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that unless capital punishment is restored the police will have to be armed and there will be shooting in the streets. There is already shooting in the streets. I find it very strange that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important debate and it is coming to a close.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is very odd that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said that the state has no right to take life. If that is the case, they should all be conscientous objectors when there is a war. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and I both served in the last war, he for much longer than I, and we were given the right by the state to take life.
There must be something wrong with the conscience of those who vote for the abortion of a conceived but unborn child yet vote against capital punishment for evil murder. Quite a few of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that most people want the return of capital punishment because they believe that it will act as a deterrent. They want a return of capital punishment not because they are more evil than hon. Members of other opinions on both sides of the Chamber but because they believe that it will be a deterrent.
Good government means that the Government and the people must not draw too far apart. If we stroke the cat one way it purrs; if we stroke it the other way it hisses. Human nature and democracy react in the same way. Most of the people in this country disagree with Parliament on this big issue. We should pay careful heed to what they say. As has been said time and time again, when conscience is involved the conscience of the man in the public bar is as good as the conscience of the man in the saloon bar or the conscience of hon. Members in the bars of the House of Commons.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition hon. Members to support the new clause. If they do, I believe that a cheer will go up throughout this country that Parliament has listened to the people on an issue that causes them serious concern.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 341.

Division No. 342]
[10.33 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Arbuthnot, James
Aspinwall, Jack






Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'II Gr')


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndbum)


Batiste, Spencer
Hayward, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Beggs, Roy
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bellingham, Henry
Hind, Kenneth


Bendall, Vivian
Holt, Richard


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunter, Andrew


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jackson, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Janman, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bright, Graham
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knapman, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burns, Simon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butcher, John
Knowles, Michael


Butler, Chris
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carttiss, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cash, William
Lightbown, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
McCrea, Rev William


Chope, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Churchill, Mr
McCusker, Harold


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Marlow, Tony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Day, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Devlin, Tim
Mates, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Dicks, Terry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dover, Den
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dunn, Bob
Miller, Hal


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Eggar, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Farr, Sir John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Favell, Tony
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mudd, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neale, Gerrard


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, George
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Price, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Redwood, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hanley, Jeremy
Rost, Peter


Hannam, John
Rowe, Andrew





Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stokes, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Mike


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)



Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John Greenway and Mr. Ian Bruce.


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Tracey, Richard



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Budgen, Nicholas


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Amos, Alan
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Couchman, James


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Tom


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Blunkett, David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Body, Sir Richard
Cunningham, Dr John


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bottomley, Peter
Dalyell, Tarn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Darling, Alistair


Bowis, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dixon, Don


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buck, Sir Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Buckley, George J.
Eastham, Ken






Evans, John (St Helens N)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Fatchett, Derek
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Fearn, Ronald
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Illsley, Eric


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Ingram, Adam


Fisher, Mark
Irvine, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Irving, Charles


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Janner, Greville


Forman, Nigel
John, Brynmor


Foster, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Foulkes, George
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Franks, Cecil
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Fraser, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Freeman, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Galbraith, Sam
Kennedy, Charles


Galloway, George
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Kirkwood, Archy


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Knox, David


George, Bruce
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Leadbitter, Ted


Golding, Mrs Llin
Leighton, Ron


Goodlad, Alastair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gordon, Mildred
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gould, Bryan
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Gow, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Lilley, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Grist, Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ground, Patrick
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Loyden, Eddie


Harman, Ms Harriet
McAllion, John


Harris, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Haselhurst, Alan
McCartney, Ian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McFall, John


Hawkins, Christopher
McGrady, Eddie


Hayes, Jerry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Haynes, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
McKelvey, William


Heathcoat-Amory, David
McLeish, Henry


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert


Henderson, Doug
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Madden, Max


Hinchliffe, David
Madel, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Major, Rt Hon John


Holland, Stuart
Mallon, Seamus


Home Robertson, John
Maples, John


Hood, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John


Howard, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Howells, Geraint
Martlew, Eric


Hoyle, Doug
Maxton, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Meacher, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mellor, David





Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Michael, Alun
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sheerman, Barry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Short, Clare


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Skinner, Dennis


Moate, Roger
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Nellist, Dave
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Pike, Peter L.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Primarolo, Dawn
Waldegrave, Hon William


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walden, George


Radice, Giles
Wall, Pat


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Waller, Gary


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Walters, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Renton, Tim
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowe, Andrew
Wray, Jimmy


Rowlands, Ted
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ruddock, Joan



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. David Ashby and Mr. Bruce Grocott.


Sainsbury, Hon Tim



Salmond, Alex

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Bill, as amended (in the standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Mr. R. C. Arnold

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Sir Anthony Grant: Portugal is our oldest ally, a partner in NATO, in the EEC and, of course, in the Council of Europe. We have all admired the transition of Portugal to a democracy in recent years. However, one of the characteristics of democracy is that the rights of individuals should be respected. It is because such rights have been transgressed in the case of my constituent that I raise the subject tonight. The failure to settle and the prevarication of the Portuguese Government over some 13 years can only be described as an international scandal.
In January 1970, my constituent, Mr. R. C. Arnold, of Harston, Cambridgeshire, with his partners, acquired 11,000 acres of land at Galveias farm, Alentejo, Portugal, with a lease of 18 years, which was later increased to 24 years. They successfully operated until the Portuguese revolution. Then, in October 1975, they were dispossessed by the Sindicado, which is the Communist trade union. I understand that valuations of the property were made by Portuguese valuers at the time of expropriation.
When democratic government was established in Portugal, the Government recognised the need to adhere to the treaty of 1914 and to compensate for the expropriation, which was agreed in principle. The amount of money involved was approximately £1 million, much of which was for repaying banks.
Subsequently, my noble Friend Lord Pym and then my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), one of whose constituents was a partner in this venture, have pursued the matter vigorously on behalf of their constituents. However, no progress has been made, despite continued expressions of agreement.
I then came into the picture. On 4 July 1985, Baroness Young, who was then Minister of State, told me that "welcome progress" was being made. That was after 10 years. She told me that the Portuguese had set up an inter-ministerial commission in October 1984. On 10 July, we were told, "Rest assured, we shall continue our efforts" to pursue this matter on behalf of my constituents.
On 8 November, we were told that the claim was about to be settled but a general election intervened in Portugal and caused further delay. However, we were told that it was "agreed in principle". The Foreign Office told me:
Your constituents' claim will be treated first against those still outstanding".
That was in November 1985, but absolutely nothing happened.
I understand that in May 1986 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told Senor Cavaco Silva that she viewed the matter with some concern. On 22 July, my constituents told me that the Portuguese lawyers acting for them had been
trying for weeks, without success, to bring the Portuguese authorities to the negotiating table".
On 31 July 1986 Baroness Young told me that the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture officials would contemplate their valuation report by September 1986, but once again nothing happened. At that stage, my constituents counted up the number of promises of settlement and they came to no fewer than 44, but not a single escudo had been produced.
On 21 October 1986, we were told by the Foreign Office that the
valuation work was all hut completed
and that continued pressure would be brought to hear at the highest level to ensure that, but absolutely nothing happened.
On 4 December 1986, we were told that on 28 November 1986 the British ambassador had handed a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Portuguese Prime Minister expressing concern that the matter had still not been resolved. The Portuguese Prime Minister agreed that it had gone on for "far too long". We were told:
the way is clear for direct negotiation".
Another six months elapsed and an 80-page document in Portuguese descended on my constituents. Much of their claim was ignored but a derisory offer of less than £300,000 was offered on terms which were by no means clear. On 21 May 1987, my noble Friend Lord Pym was told that the Portuguese Foreign Minister was
anxious to resolve the matter".
There were elections in Portugal on 19 July last year but the Foreign Office said that they "should not delay matters". Once again the time-honoured Foreign Office words were, "We shall continue to press hard". My constituents had received about 69 letters on the subject, but not a solitary escudo.
On 17 August 1987, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate emerged on the scene and informed me that the Foreign Secretary himself had raised the matter twice. The new Portuguese Government had an overall majority for the first time and I was told that the Foreign Office view was that its officials would press hard for the earliest possible decision to be made. However, all that tremendous pressure makes one wonder that the Portuguese have not been ground into the soil. Nevertheless, on 5 November 1987, the Foreign Office said that Senor da Costa Pereira was "urging an early decision" and that they would
not let the matter rest".
We now come to 16 November 1987 when the Portuguese Foreign Minister said that he
appreciated the seriousness of the matter
and that he would do what he could to clear it up. The last thing that happened was that on 22 March this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told me that prior to the Portuguese Prime Minister's visit to this country on 10 to 12 March the Portuguese Government had informed the embassy that they were prepared to compensate British subjects for expropriation "in a just way". My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she hoped that the matter would be settled quickly, but absolutely nothing has happened.
Thirteen years have now elapsed and, frankly, that is just not good enough. I have always loved Portugal, have admired its people and worked closely with the Portuguese parliamentarians during the 10 years that I was a member of the Council of Europe. However, this is not the behaviour that we expect from our oldest ally and partner. If it had happened in the middle east we should have had hostage taking and violence by now.
Nor does the Foreign Office come out of this affair well. All the talk of pressure has led to nothing. It has been far too feeble in its approach—I exonerate entirely my right hon. Friend the Minister of State from this—and far too wishy-washy. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend


will have some better news for my unfortunate constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, who has fought, as I have, on their behalf.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful for the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has given me to explain the Government's action on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Arnold, and the managers of the Galveias farm.
First, let me express to Mr. Arnold and his partner the Government's sympathy for the considerable financial loss which they have sustained. I share my hon. Friend's sense of frustration and that of Mr. Arnold that, despite the enormously long lapse of time, no compensation has yet been paid. I hope that I can demonstrate to the House that this is not due to a lack of vigorous and continuous action by this Government or our predecessors. It is due to a lack of response from those who alone can make the positive decision to alter this wrong state of affairs.
The Galveias farm was one of nine British-owned or rented farms in the Alentejo area which were expropriated in 1974–75. The British were not the only ones to have their farms expropriated: Portuguese, Germans, Belgians and other nationalities were also faced with the loss of their livelihood.
It was not for the British Government to negotiate the terms of compensation with the Portuguese. Our role was to do what we could to ensure that compensation was paid. To this end, successive British Governments have made repeated calls on the Portuguese Government on behalf of the owners of the nine expropriated British farms.
We finally appeared to be getting somewhere when, in 1983, five of the original nine farms were returned to their original owners. We believed then that a satisfactory solution for the other four claims was at hand. I am as cross and disappointed as they that our good friends the Portuguese, which they are, have not found it possible to resolve these four remaining claims. The Galveias farm issue and the other three claims are of grave concern which I will raise next week when I see the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs in Luxembourg at the Foreign Affairs Council. I have arranged for the ambassador to have a copy of the report of this debate tomorrow so that he will be fully aware of the seriousness with which we regard this issue.
During her visit to Portugal in April 1984, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the question with the then Portuguese Prime Minister, who is now the President, Dr. Mario Soares. They agreed that the issue should be resolved by officials. We continued persistently to lobby in both London and Lisbon.
The Portuguese Government set up an inter-ministerial commission in November 1984 to investigate the claims. Our efforts seemed about to succeed when the inter-ministerial commission accepted the principle of the claim lodged by Mr. Arnold and his partners, and set a deadline for the cases to be resolved by the end of April 1985. Any optimism again proved to be illusory. In the

summer of 1985, the Portuguese National Assembly was dissolved, elections were called and again the decision-making process ground to a halt. But our ambassador in Lisbon continued to press for a resolution of the case as soon as the new Government were in place.
In January 1986, the ambassador raised the question with the new Prime Minister, Professor Cavaco Silva. The ambassador provided him with a list of the claims and Professor Cavaco Silva promised to get the new Minister of Finance to look into the matter. The embassy followed up by leaving an aide memoire with the Foreign Ministry in February. On 12 May 1986, when Professor Cavaco Silva called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in London, she again pressed for a speedy resolution of the problem. Professor Cavaco Silva told her that a settlement was close and only the amount had to be decided. I visited Lisbon later that month and I too took up the issue. Despite constant pressure from our embassy in Lisbon, no sign of a satisfactory conclusion has appeared.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, on 28 November 1986, my right hon. Friend sent another message to Professor Cavaco Silva expressing her concern that the problem had still not been overcome. In reply, Professor Cavaco Silva said that the commission report evaluating the four outstanding claims had just been completed. We subsequently learned from the Portuguese embassy that the report had been agreed and that the way was clear for direct negotiations with the claimants.
Pressure on the Portuguese Government continued throughout last year. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with the Portuguese Foreign Minister when they met on 15 June and again on 22 June.
The Portuguese elections in July last year again delayed progress. The ambassador raised the matter with the Secretary-General of the Portuguese Foreign Ministry in September, as soon as the composition of the new Government was known, and with the Foreign Minister in October. The next part of the litany is that the ambassador reminded the Foreign Minister of the assurances given by the present and previous Governments to settle the claims, and referred in particular to Professor Cavaco Silva's remarks to the Prime Minister in May 1986.
Our ambassador again emphasised that the delay in settling the claims was becoming intolerable and that we did not want the issue to cast a shadow over our otherwise excellent relations. He warned the Portuguese that adverse publicity could be expected if a settlement was not reached soon. The Foreign Minister said that he appreciated the seriousness of the matter and that he would do what he could to clear it up.
Shortly before the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister to London in March this year, the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified our embassy in Lisbon that the Portuguese were prepared to compensate, as my hon. Friend has said, "in a just way." They said that they now had sufficient information to allow them to enter into direct negotiations with the parties concerned or their representatives.
I must tell the House that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw Professor Cavaco Silva in London on 11 March, she again impressed on him the need to resolve the issue quickly. The embassy in Lisbon subsequently told all the claimants that they should make the necessary contact with the Foreign Ministry and the four British claimants have now provided full details of


their claims to the Portuguese Foreign Ministry. Only last week, our ambassador also spoke again to the new Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, as he explained to me earlier today.
I make no apology for running through the chronology of events in some detail. That is important if we are to understand the efforts that have been made by the Foreign Office—I must correct my hon. Friend—and by successive British Governments. We have sought to resolve this matter, but it is not in our hands to give the solution into the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice).
This outstanding bone of contention with the Portuguese Government has gone on far too long and it is high time that it was sorted out. Portugal is our oldest ally. We have very good relations, and in 1986 we celebrated the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor. We are friends and partners, and we sit next to one another in European Community meetings. We have a good spirit of friendship

that normally solves problems without them ever having to come even to the notice of hon. Members. Certainly they should not take up debating time late in the night.
I believe that the Portuguese Government are aware that such cases are doing harm to their reputation. I hope that they will take it from me tonight that we are determined and convinced that this problem can and should be solved forthwith.
The debate will have provided the Portuguese Government with a demonstration of the depth of feeling aroused by the matter. As I mentioned earlier, our ambassador in Lisbon will be instructed to hand over a copy of the Hansard record of this debate to the Portuguese Foreign Minister. I shall speak to him next week about this matter. I hope that we shall very soon see the grave problems of Mr. Arnold and the other three people solved so that once and for all this issue can be put behind us, which is what should have been done many years ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.